West Side Story revival? — Page 8

It's still not clear here. Did Ramasar take the photos he had with permission or not? That makes a huge difference. The rest is just dirty talk, and like all dirty talk is offensive or not depending on the individual, but not threatening or criminal. If he photographed a woman's body without her consent, that's a crime. If he forced a woman to do something she didn't want, that's a crime. But did he?

Here is the complaint, with details: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=Lis4cO2R91MS028v6xQ2zA==

It's not specified whether the pictures Ramasar sent were consensually taken, but considering the nature of the lawsuit, my common sense instinct tells me that if the pictures were demonstrably non-consensual it would have been mentioned in the complaint and used to further the plaintiff's argument.

You are not a good man.

Making categorical statements about strangers on the internet based on one random judgement is not a good look. Everyone is imperfect, including you.

We have told you, many many times that these photos and videos were taken WITHOUT HER CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE.

Just to repeat the above, the photos from Ramasar shared were, as far as we know, consensual. Despite your all-caps proclamation, your information is incorrect.

 

Can we stop blaming people for taking nude photos? The legality of sharing someone's nudes has nothing to do with why people are upset with Amar's casting, it's just a deflection that the same users keeps harping on to carry on an argument that should have been said and done hours ago.

In 41 states the action of sharing someone's nudes without their consent is considered criminal under revenge porn laws, with New York trying to be one of those states in the coming year. Just because Amar escaped legal action doesn't make what he did any less disgusting. Nobody is calling for an arrest, but the fact he has been cast in this production hot off the scandal after offering no remorse to his actions is disgusting. The behavior WAS predatory regardless of if the images were taken with consent or without consent.

"The men involved should have behaved better."

This also goes for some men on this thread. They should tread lightly and stop saying ignorant, disrespectful, sexist, and extremely upsetting sh*t.  

MemorableUserName: Sharing someone's images without their permission--no matter if they were consensually obtained--is illegal in New York City, which passed such a law in 2017.

Fetus: In 41 states the action of sharing someone's nudes without their consent is considered criminal under revenge porn laws, with New York trying to be one of those states in the coming year.

Here are the laws:

New York City - https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-york/ny-laws/ny_new_york_city_administrative_code_10-177-3

New York State - https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s1719

Both have a very specific "intent" aspect to the law. For example, this is the portion from the NY state law: "...with intent to cause harm to the emotional, financial or physical welfare of another person..." And the NYC law: "...with the intent to cause economic, physical or substantial emotional harm to such depicted individual..."

Ramasar's intent was clearly to titillate his friends, but not to extract any kind of toll on his ex-girlfriend, therefore him sharing the photo would not be illegal under the NY state/city revenge porn laws.

ctorres23 said: "MemorableUserName: Sharing someone's images without their permission--no matter if they were consensually obtained--is illegal in New York City, which passed such a law in 2017.

Fetus: In 41 states the action of sharing someone's nudes without their consent is considered criminal under revenge porn laws, with New York trying to be one of those states in the coming year.

Here are the laws:

New York City -https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-york/ny-laws/ny_new_york_city_administrative_code_10-177-3

New York State -https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s1719

Both have a very specific "intent" aspect to the law. For example, this is the portion from the NY state law: "...with intent to cause harm to the emotional, financial or physical welfare of another person..."And the NYC law: "...with the intent to cause economic, physical or substantial emotional harm to such depicted individual..."

Ramasar's intent was clearly to titillate his friends, but not to extract any kind of toll on his ex-girlfriend, therefore him sharing the photo would not be illegal under the NY state/city revenge porn laws."

I'm not playing the lawyer game because I can acknowledge that this behavior is disgusting and this action IS criminal in other states regardless of intent. I'm not calling for an arrest, just a recasting in the best interest of a cast of young newcomers, as newcomers to the ballet company were the target of their intimate photos being unrightfully shared.

 

But if the guy did not take pics against anyone's will, how is he a threat to anyone in the cast? I don't think your argument holds up. People work with creeps everyday. It's part of life. If he took the pics without consent, he's a genuine threat and needs to be kept away from other performers. That's what the issue hinges on, for me.

Updated On: 7/10/19 at 07:16 PM

DoTheDood said: "ChildofEarth said: "Troll in the dungeon."

Beyond obvious too. Again, nobody starts off a sentence with "I'm a good person..." and is expected to say something nice. It's like thinking you will get a level-headed comment after "I'm not racist, but...""

A+++++

ctorres23 said: "Fetus: this action IS criminal in other states regardless of intent

Which states?"

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/revenge-porn-laws-by-state.html

ctorres23 said: "Fetus said: "ctorres23 said: "Fetus: this action IS criminal in other states regardless of intent

Which states?"

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/revenge-porn-laws-by-state.html"

That is indeed a list of all the states, but to clarify my question, which state revenge porn law did Ramasar break? You made the claim with confidence, so I assume you know."

I said the action was illegal in other states, which it is, to which you asked me which states and I provided a link where you can read US revenge porn laws and find it yourself. Comprehension doesn't seem to be a strong suit with you.

ctorres23 said: "Fetus said:I said the action was illegal in other states, which it is, to which you asked me which states and I provided a link where you can read US revenge porn laws and find it yourself. Comprehension doesn't seem to be a strong suit with you.

Why are you insulting me? Either way, let me be clearer: he did not break any of these states' revenge porn laws.

All of them have some form of intent clause, and the reason is because without the intent clause it creates a very gray area around all nude photo shoots. Without an intent clause, the law would essentially require a contractual agreement for all intimate photoshoots, lest the subject retroactively claim non-consent.

I knew you made up the claim that it was illegal in other states, but I was hoping you'd clarify it."

Alaska - Publishing or distributing electronic or printed photographs, pictures, or films that show the genitals of the other person, or depict that person engaged in a sexual act.

Arkansas - Unlawful distribution of sexual images or recordings.    

Delaware - Posting a nude or sexually explicit photo or video of someone on the internet without their consent.

These are just the first 3 examples to come up on the webpage I linked. I stand by what I said and I didn't "make it up". Get over yourself and stop trolling.

Updated On: 7/10/19 at 08:11 PM

MemorableUserName said: "https://gothamist.com/2018/09/05/nyc_ballet_lawsuit.php
Snip
"
Can anyone with half a brain actually believe someone would give permission for nude photographs to be distributed to her co-workers, in her workplace? Really? That's the defense Amansar's supporters are going with: "Maybe he had those women's permission to send her nude photographs to her co-workers!" Really?"

If anything comes out of this, I hope any naive young people reading this might have their eyes opened about how many many many men, no matter how nice they may seem, actually act when they are "with the guys."  They view you as nothing more than something to be used & thrown away.  Don't expect justice if you get treated badly. You won't get it. Don't trust anyone. Always keep your guard up.  Learn self-defense & arm yourself.

Updated On: 7/10/19 at 08:25 PM

ctorres23 said: "Fetus said: "Alaska...Arkansas...Delaware"

All three of those states have intent clauses in the text of their laws."

I'm failing to find said 'intent clause' but I'm sure even if I proved you wrong you would still find something to argue over. I'm done arguing on this topic because at the end of the day this is disgusting behavior and stop trying defend or make light of it.

Fetus said: "I'm failing to find said 'intent clause' but I'm sure even if I proved you wrong you would still find something to argue over. I'm done arguing on this topic because at the end of the day this is disgusting behavior and stop trying defend or make light ofit."

They're on the site you linked.

Alaska: "...with intent to harass or annoy another person..." (https://codes.findlaw.com/ak/title-11-criminal-law/ak-st-sect-11-61-120.html), although this is in the context of overall harassment and Alaska doesn't have a dedicated revenge porn law

Arkansas: "...with the purpose to harass, frighten, intimidate, threaten, or abuse another person..." (https://codes.findlaw.com/ar/title-5-criminal-offenses/ar-code-sect-5-26-314.html)

Delaware: "...with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm the person depicted..." (https://codes.findlaw.com/de/title-11-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/de-code-sect-11-1335.html)

I'm only arguing because you made a specific claim I knew to be wrong. I don't even generally care about incorrect information, but it bothers me when it's in the context of another person's reputation.