That would be wonderful indeed. But its an ideal, not reality.
And surely you would not deny another person the right to decide for his/herself whether they wish to be viewed in the buff, regardles of the state or condition of their body. And I note too that you didn’t make any statement regarding secret filming/viewing… I’m just posting my own opinion now.
I think we should all have the right to make such choice for and by ourselves. And when someone takes the right to make that choice away from me, that is, IMO, similar to, if not the same as, stealing. Its an unconsented taking.
I dont think this is a dumb discussion in the least. Furthermore, I defend my right to my pathetic/ ridiculous opinions.
I just see this situation as one where the women aren’t really that outraged, and dont really feel that defiled. They are not pushing for the man to be charged, they are having a go at Hooters. They want money, and possibly publicity. Justice? I doubt it.
Is it ironic? To me, yes. Is it serious? Reasonably. Gaol time: Nah. Heavy fine, and name in the paper: Yes.
If someone wanted to secretly video tape my girl because they thought she was hot, could I feel flattered? Would I have to be disgusted?
If you argue for your limitations, you get to keep them…
I’m less concerned with how you feel about it and more concerned with how your girlfriend, or any girl/woman would feel about it. Why would anyone care how you feel about it?
How you think the women feel, gen how they feel, you shenme guanxi?
If a call girl were raped would that also be “ironic”? It’s funny because a girl choosing to wear sexy clothes for a job was pervographed nude by a hidden camera… may we conclude that you feel they somehow “had it coming”?
[quote=“mistercrisps”] If a call girl were raped would that also be “ironic”? [quote]
NO, of course not. Dont confuse my being a jerk on a forum, with me being seriously deranged about social issues.
Its a shame more people won’t defend the seemingly undefendable. A laywer will have to argue the case against these women, will they not?
Is the world so very black and white? Am I really such a bad boy for saying what I really feel?
[quote]If you argue for your limitations, you get to keep them…
[/quote][/quote][/quote]
They need a lawyer not just in case they want to plead “not guilty by reason that checking out nekkid hooters chicks with a hidden camera is okay.” The trial might bring up questions other than that.
Like, who actually installed the cameras? Did the management know? What kind of sentence would be appropriate for these persons? (Which would lead to questions of purpose, and whether they had a criminal record, etc.) Or at least, this is how things would work in a country characterized by rule of law.
Five years in state prison for such a petty offence! That strikes me as way too severe, unless the offender is a recidivist with a long history of similar offences.
Sorry I couldn’t open the link. What is this secret thing girls do when they think they are alone? I need this info for a study I am doing caled “Things people do when they think they are alone.” It is a companion piece to another study I did called “Things people do when they are pretending that they think they are alone but actually they know they are being watched.” Thanks.
[quote]Juan Martin Aponte, 32, has been held on $500,000 bail since his arrest in May.
He pleaded no contest to five felony counts, including two counts of using a minor for a sex act and three counts of eavesdropping, and will be sentenced to five years in state prison, the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said.
A sentencing hearing was set for August 24.
The taping allegedly occurred between November and February in a trailer outside a restaurant being renovated as a new Hooters – a chain best known for its scantily clad waitresses.
Police investigated after a woman said she was asked to try on a Hooters uniform in a job interview.
About 180 digital recordings were found at Aponte’s home and the construction trailer, authorities said.
Officials with the Atlanta-based restaurant chain have said it is against company policy to ask job applicants to change clothes.
[/quote]
I’m assuming this just means that two of the job applicants he filmed were under 18 or whatever the age of majority is there. Of course, it might be that the police uncovered evidence of his having engaged in sexual activity with a minor in addition to his secret filming, in which case it would be an entirely different matter. But as the report contains no reference to any criminal activity other than the filming, I think we’re entitled to assume that isn’t the case.
So if he did nothing but film these girls for his own titillation (no attempted blackmail, no putting the film on the Internet or trying to sell it, etc.), then yes, I regard it as no more than a petty crime that hardly even warrants a custodial sentence, especially if he has no previous convictions.
BTW, what strange names the US attaches to its crimes. Why on earth do they use the term “eavesdropping” for secret filming? I’ve always understood this word to mean simply listening, not looking or filming, and a quick peep in the dictionary confirms it as meaning just that and nothing else. Why extend its meaning in such an inappropriate and misleading manner rather than using a separate term that properly describes the offence?
Thanks Tiger but that isn’t quite what I was looking for. In one of the original posts someone mentioned something about “that secret thing women do” and the link was supposed to tell us what that thing was. I am suprised nobody mentioned it. I mean of all the silly things we talk about here “that secret thing women do” should be one of them no?
I think they should put everybody in prison. I mean after all nobody is innocent, and even if they are practically innocent, there is no telling what they might do in the future… :loco:
Recently I have come into contact with some people who are involved in restorative justice. It is a bit complicated but the basic idea is that offenders should be required to apologize to their victims and restore their lives to what they were before. Punishment is not even considered. It is a better idea for a lot of reasons.
C’mon … “restorative justice”? I bet it is a bit complicated, trying to restore victim’s lives “to what they were before” after cases involving rape, murder, arson, money laundering, etc.
C’mon … “restorative justice”? I bet it is a bit complicated, trying to restore victim’s lives “to what they were before” after cases involving rape, murder, arson, money laundering, etc.[/quote]
klaxon, I completely agree. There are some crimes, like the ones you mentioned, for which things can simply not go back to the way they were. It sounds like bob in some ways is talking about restitution which is not new at all.
