It’s a sad reflection - even the accusation of rape can ruin a man’s life. It’s been repeated over and over again, and this is far from the only coverage of false accusations having an extreme effect on someone’s life.
The upshot is, to say that men aren’t at very significant risk from a FEW woman out there is insanely crazy. It’s very pat to say things like “don’t stick yer dick in the crazy” or “only have sex with people you trust” - but doesn’t that just amount to victim blaming? Why SHOULD men have to protect themselves against such false accusations?
We hear over and over how suggesting that a lady does something stupid (like getting drunk at a frat party) is fine, but men have to be aware of such things to protect themselves?
Haven’t read the whole thread, but what the dude in the OP was doing would be illegal in Texas (and any state with similar laws):
The second dude (the one accused of rape) would also be committing a crime, if she didn’t know the cell phone was on.
Now, it’d be a defense if you were doing for some reason other than to “arouse” someone. That’d be up to the jury.
Interestingly, it’s not just taking taking the picture, but also “transmitting” it that’s illegal. So if I, for example, transmitted a photograph of Marilyn Monroe to this post, without her permission, for the purpose of “arrousing” someone, I’d be committing a felony in the state of Texas.
It’s not really a defense – it’s an element of the crime that the film was taken FOR the purpose of arousal and it would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (As opposed to the burden being on the camera operator to prove there was no intent to arouse.)
Yeah, you’re right. It’s an element of the crime. But intent can be inferred from a person’s actions, and ultimately it would be up to the jury to decide, if it got that far, what the intent of the defendant was. That he was secretly filming women for purposes of arousing someone would be an inference many jurors would be predisposed to make.
Of course, they might buy his explanation that he was doing it to protect himself. But then again, they might not.
That’s an awfully poorly-written law. Taken at face value it seems to be saying that photographing somebody without their consent is ok if it’s done in a bathroom or private dressing room, but not ok out in public.
A person commits an offense if he “photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is a bathroom or private dressing room: (A) without the other person’s consent; and (B) with intent to: (i) invade the privacy of the other person; or (ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or (3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).”
As a whole, it would suggest that filming in “not a bathroom” is only a crime if it is done nonconsensually and with the intent to arouse. But in a bathroom, it’s a crime if there’s an intent to invade privacy.
