Contact
Subscribe


"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not filmed."

Dec 30, 2008
By .
Culture, Law

Seems that Wisconsin courts have ruled in the favor of privacy for nudists.

A state appeals court ruled Tuesday that a person who is voluntarily nude in the presence of another still has privacy rights against being secretly videotaped, in a decision that bolsters Wisconsin's video voyeur law.

The ruling upholds the felony guilty plea of Mark Jahnke, who videotaped his girlfriend while she was naked and while they were having sex. He argued in his appeal that because the woman agreed to be naked around him, she had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The more you know….

Last 5 posts by Mike

5 Comments
Tags

5 Comments

  1. Patrick  •  Dec 30, 2008 @6:27 pm

    Terrible. With all of these laws, it's almost as though a man's home is no longer his castle.

  2. PLW  •  Dec 30, 2008 @6:36 pm

    I don't think you can film people naked or having sex in your castle, either, without their consent.

  3. Ken  •  Dec 30, 2008 @6:59 pm

    Isn't this fairly comparable to laws saying you can't tape record conversations with people without their knowledge? The person has no expectation of privacy with respect to you, but they do with respect to undisclosed other persons.

  4. Ken  •  Dec 30, 2008 @6:59 pm

    I don’t think you can film people naked or having sex in your castle, either, without their consent.

    PLW, you just broke Michael Jackson's heart.

  5. Mike  •  Dec 30, 2008 @7:07 pm

    So the law assumes that films and recordings will be heard or viewed by someone other than the person making them? No doubt the precogs have already seen this.