German Court Rules That You Can't Keep Compromising Photos After a Break-Up

mrspoonsi (2955715) writes "A German amateur photographer has found out after his ex-girlfriend took him to court, which ruled that the subjects of smutty pictures can withdraw their consent if they're naked. [News release in German.] The shutterbug was able to keep the clothed pictures, however, as they weren't considered to compromise the reputation of the woman in question."

Comments

Ridiculous

[kruach aum]

When you take off your clothes in front of a camera you should be responsible enough to understand the consequences, just like with literally every other bad decision you can make. Love is not an excuse to be retarded.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

No body plans to break up while going into a relationship normally. If people want to play with their toys in their bedrooms, that is their own business. In this case, a camera is a toy. Once a relationship is over, they can keep the camera, but the images should be the property of those in them. If more than one person? Cut out the others.

They did not enter into a contract, verbal or otherwise, that they give up the rights to their likeness.

Re:Ridiculous

[kruach aum]

No alcoholic or chain smoker plans to become addicted when they buy that first bottle of whisky/pack of cigarettes either, but that doesn't mean it's not something they shouldn't take into consideration.

What this court case shows is that this woman is a poor judge of character. And instead of taking the opportunity to learn something, she just sues, making sure nothing is resolved and in fact (by winning) positively reinforcing her poor people judging skills.

Re:Ridiculous

[PopeRatzo]

Cut out the others.

That's why I always make my partners where clothing made out of green screen. That way, I can later use Adobe Premiere to insert images of supermodels.

My last girlfriend, I was able to superimpose a couple of supermodels over all that green.

[OK, see that was a joke. Honey, if you happen to be reading this, I'm just having a little fun with the fellas on Slashdot, and that green lingerie I bought you had nothing to do with CGI.]

Re:Ridiculous

[PsychoSlashDot]

When you take off your clothes in front of a camera you should be responsible enough to understand the consequences, just like with literally every other bad decision you can make. Love is not an excuse to be retarded.

If you want to include the word "should", then apply it where it belongs. When you take your clothes off in front of a camera, there should not be consequences beyond your partner being aroused. That the woman in the article has to worry about her "reputation" is what is wrong. Personally the only way her having taken nude pictures impacts my view of her is that I now know she's a fun-loving person comfortable being attractive and sexual. She's not ashamed or repressed or otherwise convinced that the animal she is is somehow a bad thing.

There shouldn't be a big deal over being seen naked.

I get it that we're not there societally yet. I get it that because we're not there, there are consequences. But if we're going to talk about "should", let's put it where it belongs; we all should be comfortable in our natural state. That someone posts a picture of the shape of your butt shouldn't matter any more than someone posting a sound sample of your voice or a molding of your elbow.

Re:Ridiculous

[BilI_the_Engineer]

No body plans to break up while going into a relationship normally.

Irrelevant. If the pictures aren't stored on their private property, then too bad for them.

And what makes naked pictures special? What is this puritan nonsense?

Re:Ridiculous

[MaskedSlacker]

No body plans to break up while going into a relationship normally

Then they're obviously not paying attention since that is how the majority of their relationships will end.

Re:Ridiculous

[eibo]

Have you considered that maybe your view of relationships might not be universal? There are many people who will value a relationship highly even after it ends, everything you say seems to be negative. If a person dwells on a mental image of an ex it apparently has been a time well spent with this person. It would be a terrible world indeed where we would stop remembering the good times we had together with some loved one.

Re:Ridiculous

[Lost Race]

Wow, that's ten tons of crazy piled into a half-ton pickup.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Your inability to imagine something is not proof of its non-existence; it's only proof of your limited imagination.

As far as the case in Germany goes... It sort of makes sense to prohibit someone from publishing compromising photos of their ex, but requiring that certain photos be deleted is impractical, unreasonable, unenforceable, and just plain dumb. Are they also going to demand that he forgets what she looked like naked? As long as he keeps the photo to himself, what's the difference between that and a memory? Nothing.

Keeping a photo as a reminder of a pleasant experience in your past is by no means crazy or immoral. That's exactly what photo albums are for, and why everybody keeps them! Just because you have a picture of someone (naked or otherwise) doesn't mean you obsess or masturbate to it. My shoebox of old travel photos (including various ex-girlfriends) just sits in the closet until I get nostalgic once every year or five and have a look through it. No obsession, no masturbation, no reputations smeared.

Re:Ridiculous

[eibo]

This is probably the core of this court decision: the judges share your opinion. They think taking pornographic pictures is indecent and no modest person should indulge in this. If you look closely you will notice, that this thinking needs some condemation of sexuality itself.

It is possible to think differently, though. I would even go as far as saying: Not taking pornographic pictures is an indicator for a lack of love of the other person or ones own body. As you said, you need to be responsible and talk about how these pictures may be used, but beyond that I cannot see any consequences you should fear.

Re:Ridiculous

[VortexCortex]

The only possible reasons to keep adult photo's after a relationship ends are unethical and immoral. Either the person wants to use them for revenge/smear purposes, or they are unable to cope with the termination of the relationship and need something to cling on to, or perhaps they have a porn collection that they want to supplement with an old girlfriend for masturbatory purposes. In all cases, that is unacceptable behavior and symptomatic of numerous possible mental disorders.

So says you. Seems you failed philosophy 101. I think all that's healthy as fuck, and part of the human experience. Who the fuck are you to tell me what I can and can't do in the privacy of my own home?

If a person dwells on a mental image of an ex, we would consider them sociopaths and dangerous.

You're right of your fucking rocker, mate. You're assuming a fuck-load of intent based on zero action. Get bent, you fool.

If they went around telling people what their ex looked like naked, we would think the same.

Are you even aware that you're trying to label every guy or girl who has ever pined for lost love or hung out with their friends "sociopaths" and "dangerous".

Why is a physical picture different than a mental picture? That's a rhetorical question, and the answer is [I'm a fucking idiot, and I don't know anything about reality so I ask stupid questions and make huge logical leaps]"

The physical picture isn't much different than a mental picture except I remember damn near everything that's ever happened to me all the way back to around my 3rd birthday, so my memories have proven more permanent than lots of photos, many of which burned in a house fire destroying family albums, along with some photos of deceased friends who passed away along with my girlfriend.

Fuck you for saying the few pics of them I still have left are signs of sociopathic or derangement. You may consider memory loss healthy, but I consider it a malfunction. Practice what you preach, idiot:

To claim that a relationship is wrong, or that two consenting adults planning a long term relationship can't do things in the bedroom is social retardation at it's finest.

To claim that being single is wrong, or that a consenting adult who's not harming anyone in private can't do things in their bedroom is the gourmet batshit Orwellian insanity. I'm glad I'm not a German and don't live in the EU (where they've enacted the Memory Hole law) so I don't have bend over and take the police state right up the place where you should go fuck yourself.

You might be an idiot who gave your ex some nudes and regretted it, so you like this ruling. However what you don't realize is this is just inching you long towards a bad place you don't want to be. Hey, have you seen what we can do with cybernetics and neurology now? FALSE MEMORIES. Yep. We can also identify where a memory is in the brain too, we can ERASE MEMORIES. How would you folks to leverage their right to be forgotten inside your skull? Oh you'd love it, I'm sure you're just wetting yourself thinking of all the fun you can have doing this to folks you now hate. See, you're the one that's not demonstrating the ability to empathize with normal human behavior. YOU'RE THE PSYCHO.

Eventually you'll get enough laws in place that you can't function without breaking them. It'll be no big deal at first because selective enforcement only holds the "really bad" offenders to the rules. You know, the folks who do this shit to celebrities and officials. Then one day you'll realize that these laws aren't being applied equally. Then you'll realize the definition of what's acceptable has changed and so have the penalties when you weren't looking. Then you'll say or do something some pompous powerful plutocrat doesn't like, and you'll be taking your turn in the slammer. Enjoy your distended anus in the police state priso

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think "unethical," "immoral," "sociopath or " "psychopath" mean what you think they mean.

Re:Ridiculous

[Dahamma]

the images should be the property of those in them.

Except that's completely not the way photographic copyright law works - even in Germany, AFAIK.

And why is a camera "a toy"? Cameras a a tool, and pretty much no one argues that the photos can be art.

What if the subject posed for a nude painting (from a good enough artist that it was accurate/near photo-realistic)? Would she have a right to have it destroyed because she changed her mind?

They did not enter into a contract, verbal or otherwise, that they give up the rights to their likeness.

A contract is SO not required, and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The court ruled it only applied to nude photos, not clothed, so it has nothing to do with right to likeness, etc.

Basically it was a bizarre ruling (hence all of the press about it) - just the court trying to "do the right thing." Which is noble, but probably not legal. Then again, it's Germany, who know how it will turn out. No way the same thing would ever happen in the US, as there was implicit consent to the pictures and freedom of expression concerns wouldn't allow someone to just "retract" their consent to a work of art from a legal sense...

Re:Ridiculous

[Dahamma]

Wow, you must have had some screwed up relationships. What, you have never had a relationship end in a way that you didn't despise the mental image of your ex? Even relationships that don't work out can be positive life experiences, with many memories that don't have to be shameful, or whatever you think they are (even the "private" ones).

And seriously, if you think looking at porn and masturbation indicate "mental disorders", you just might be the one with the disorder (not the clear majority of the population that has done it).

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to claim that a relationship by nature is unhealthy, I'll tell you to prove it.

They did not. For someone who complains so much about people not reading your posts you certainly don't do much of it yourself.

Re:Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are a person that has to sit and look at naked photos of the ex to "remember the good times" you either had a relationship that was not really a relationship but a string of sexual encounters, or you are mentally ill. I don't mean that as accusatory, but if the shoe fits...

If you want to call out the exception as the normal, at least try and make it a valid exception. Nothing you said makes my statements wrong, you appear to be trying to nitpick to convince yourself that keeping naked photo's of an ex is an okay thing to do.

Yeah, how dare they think about things that you don't want them to think about, and enjoy things you think are 'creepy'. Shame on them. They must be mentally ill, or their relationship wasn't a good one.

It's pretty damn easy to make statements about how things are immoral and indicate a mental illness (Who doesn't have a mental illness nowadays? Psychology is such pseudoscience that tons of people have them.) and such. Anyone can do it about anything.

While reading your post, I found myself thinking things like, "And that's bad because...? It's wrong because you say so?"

Re:Ridiculous

[eibo]

There are many people who will value a relationship highly even after it ends, everything you say seems to be negative.

I used a normal generalization where a person would want to keep naked pictures of their ex. If the relationship remains friends after a breakup, it's an exception not the normal. In which case, part of the friendship would entail deleting old naked photo's of the ex out of respect don't you think?

No. Deleting those pictures would be part of trying to get rid of that person. It would be like burning love letters. If you respect a person you should never do that. In addition, I don't think it is a normal generalization but your personal view.

It would be a terrible world indeed where we would stop remembering the good times we had together with some loved one.

If you are a person that has to sit and look at naked photos of the ex to "remember the good times" you either had a relationship that was not really a relationship but a string of sexual encounters, or you are mentally ill. I don't mean that as accusatory, but if the shoe fits...

What makes you denigrate sexual encounters in this way? Speaking only of my own experience I can say that sexuality has always been quite a beautiful part of my contacts with other people. Besides, I did not say that I need those pictures to remember, but I would concur that pictures help to remember, perhaps that is one of the reasons people take pictures in the first place. Furthermore, it is no insult to be mentally ill, try harder. :)

Re:Ridiculous

[BilI_the_Engineer]

There isn't any thing that can considered respectful about holding onto those images when asked for them.

It works both ways. There isn't any thing that can be considered respectful about expecting another person to get rid of images that they value stored on their own private property.

What's even less respectful is getting government thugs involved in the whole thing, and forcing the deletion of the images.

Re:Ridiculous

[JoeMerchant]

But people get off on unenforceable judgements. The real force of the judgement is that if the photos ever become public after the ruling, then the photographer can be found in contempt - which is a whole other golden opportunity for the ex to leak the photos and make additional hell for the guy....

Re:Ridiculous

[fyngyrz]

Distributing them, for any reason, beyond the bounds of the relationship without permission is one thing. Contracts, informed consent, etc. Obvious.

Simply keeping them is quite another.

Re:Ridiculous

[Noah Haders]

fine, I'll delete the pics, but I'm keeping the boudoir oil paintings!

Re:Ridiculous

[zAPPzAPP]

This is not at all a bizarre ruling.
It is totally in line with Germany's privacy laws and there are a lot of similar rulings.

The fact you are talking about copyright, when this has nothing at all to do with it, shows that you do not understand the laws ('Persönlichkeitsrecht') the ruling is based upon.

Re:Ridiculous

[YoungManKlaus]

actually the article is lost in translation, the german ruling clearly states its about the public distribution of said photos

Re:Ridiculous

[harvey the nerd]

So when someone dies, the partnership is over and you are supposed to throw away the photos ???? F' that.
German courts are expanding petty cases into US sovereignty areas. F' that.
Attempting to micromanage all sexual relationships long distance is bad for human relations, my VHEMT point. F' that.

Re:Ridiculous

[gl4ss]

Put your money where your mouth is and post a naked picture of yourself and a link. Or are you suddenly feeling modest?

what the fuck man? the "compromising pictures" in the case were never published, there were never intended for publishing and the fella had not published them.

furthermore, the way "compromising pictures" is vague you could next argue that you have the right to raid your ex friends house for pictures of you throwing up.. like wtf, what kind of contract gave consent for anyone making sure he deleted the pictures or not?

Re:Ridiculous

[spire3661]

First of all there is no 'victim' here. Two consenting adults took pictures and then later one of them changed their mind about it. That doesn't make her a victim of anything other than poor judgement.

Re:Ridiculous

[goose-incarnated]

The topic is about photos, not about payments for kids. If you don't want to pay for kids after a divorce: don't father any. It is that simple.

If you don't want someone holding nudie pics of yourself: don't give them any. It is that simple.

See? The issue of personal responsibility goes both ways.

Ramifications

[Dan East]

This should have far reaching ramifications when it comes to copyright law. As long as the original video or photographs were made consensually or in public then the photographer owns the copyright. I don't see how that can be undone. It also should open the door for further defining what exactly entails "compromising the reputation". What if someone takes a (non-sexual) photograph of a person cheating in public? Or a video of someone acting like a jerk? Those would also compromise the reputation of the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets overturned higher up.

Re:Ramifications

[nurb432]

Yes, we are getting on board the train for a slippery slope. ( well at lest the Germans are, the rest of the world isnt following... yet.. )

Re:Ramifications

[rubycodez]

no worries, Germany has a stellar record of never actually falling down a slipperly slope

Re:Ramifications

[AmiMoJo]

Why is it that Slashdot always seems to completely misunderstand all European court rulings?

The point is that the photographs were made in private, with the expectation of privacy. The girlfriend expected her boyfriend to keep them private at the time they were made. She gave consent for them to be taken on the grounds that they were a couple, and now they are not together the consent is withdrawn.

It would be bizarre for it to be any other way. In public no consent is required. Being a wanker in private would be protected though, unless there was a public interest argument. It isn't clear why anyone would consent to that in the first place though.

Re:Ramifications

[newcastlejon]

The article is light on details, which is giving me some trouble forming an opinion. If the photographer published these pictures then I agree wholeheartedly that doing so is an invasion of the subjects privacy. On the other hand, if I were to take some intimate pictures of my partner solely for my own enjoyment* that's a different matter entirely.

*How much enjoyment is to be had depends on how clean or messy the break-up was, I suppose.

Re:Ramifications

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, photography isn't just a matter of copyright in Germany. There are other rights that need to be considered too. There are limits to what you can take pictures of.

One limit is what gave Google trouble with their StreetView images: You need to get permission to take pictures of private properties, except from perspectives which are available to anyone on public ground (without ladders or other tools). Many of Google's StreetView pictures were initially taken with too tall a boom, which looked over hedges and such.

Another limit is the right to ones own picture: You generally need permission to take pictures of people, but there are some exceptions: People who are just "Beiwerk", i.e. just random bystanders who are not a dominant part of the picture, don't need to be asked for permission. Another exception is anyone who implicitly agrees to be photographed (e.g. smiles into the camera, poses, etc.). There are several more exceptions. Some of these exceptions are limited to certain uses of the picture (e.g. not in advertising).

And then there's "allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht", which loosely translates to personal rights. It's what this case is about. The Persönlichkeitsrecht" is a wide ranging right which in particular encompasses the right to privacy and protects the private sphere (innermost and most personal thoughts and feelings and sexuality). This is a very fundamental right and usually wins out over less fundamental rights, like that of a photographer to use the pictures he took.

Re:Ramifications

[Zelucifer]

She gave him consent to take them. Her consent is only needed for that single instance, as once those photos are taken, he owns them. She's essentially claiming property rights on something he owns (in this case, intellectual property). Just because it involves her being naked, does not change that fact. As long as the photos stay private, they should be his to do with as he pleases.

Need better link

[BradMajors]

This posting needs a better link. One that actually has some information.

Re:Need better link

[Anonymous Coward]

information

You mean illustration?

Re:Need better link

[ArcadeMan]

Would you settle for a really dirty picture instead?

Re:Need better link

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Wow, someone has soiled himself big time in that picture.

portrait right

[dutchwhizzman]

Several countries have the right to pictures with you in them declared legally. The right to your portraits. This means that under certain circumstances, you can withdraw previous implicit permissions, because you did not sign a waiver.

Blowing it out of proportion

[ThePhilips]

I see that Americans are already blowing it out of proportion.

Remember: German legal system isn't based on precedents.

This ruling relates to a particular case and is valid for that single particular case. Nothing else. Other judges deciding other cases might or might not pay it any attention.

Otherwise, the result is not surprising and in line with several legal initiatives in USA, targeting the "ex-GF revenge" sites.

Re:Blowing it out of proportion

[linuxrocks123]

Giving up moderation to respond to an AC. Oh, what a world.

Stare decisis, and precedent in general, is much more important in common law countries. Germany is a civil law country. I don't have a very good understanding of civil law countries (I'm from a common law country, and common law makes more intuitive sense to me), but, from what I do understand, precedent sorta kind maybe a little bit matters, but courts can basically do whatever the heck they want, basing their decisions purely on the text of the statutes. They are specifically not bound by the interpretations of that law that they or any other court used in the past. You can only really be sure that precedent is going to be followed when a high court has consistently ruled a certain way in a variety of cases over time. And even then, they can really still do whatever they want.

This isn't so ridiculous as it sounds, because even in common law countries like the US, the Supreme Court can overturn itself, and has (such as Plessy v. Ferguson). It's just considered very bad form for a court in the US to overturn itself, so it doesn't happen too much. In civil law countries, it's only really bad form to overturn a precedent if the court has consistently followed that precedent in the recent past, so a ruling in a single case doesn't matter so much.

Re:Great!!

[zugmeister]

Does this mean I can remove all the pictures of me drunk on Facebook???

Are you naked in them?

Re:Europe is pretty fucked up like that

[rubycodez]

so had her cock been smaller than yours it would have been a fine evening?

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[Nyder]

Unfortunately the screwy way copyright and the like work in the US, you get stupid things. Like my parents can't even make a digital print of their wedding picture. Because it's technically copyright to the photographer (who's dead) and the studio (which has been out of business for 35 years).

Never mind that the picture was a work for hire.
Never mind that they're the subjects of the picture.
Never mind that the picture itself is fading and they're doing this for preservational purposes.

I'm sorry, who is the stupid people here?

The people who make the laws without realizing the consequences that law will have every situation, or your parents (actually I'm referring to you, because you know better) for letting a stupid law trump common sense and digital preservation of something that is important to them, and in extent, your whole family?

Granted I know you are making an example, but it sucks. You are saying your parents can't make a digital copy of their wedding photos, when they can very much go make a digital copy of their photos. No one will stop them. Unless someone in their family got all bent out of shape because that broke some copyright law no one knows or cares about and won't let your parents make copies of them (and yes, I am looking at you for this.)

So either your story is bullshit, or you just made up parts to fit the convo here. Or I guess you are dumber then a box of rocks and the apple didn't fall far from the tree?

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most photo printing places, including WalMart or Walgreens, will refuse to print the pictures without a written release from the photographer. I had a friend (who did photography as a side business) take pictures at my wedding. I was given the raw files and did all the post work myself. Without a letter they still refused me even though they were my pictures to print. Since I wasn't doing anything sketchy, I printed up my own release form. I also had to give copies of that form to everyone in our extended families.

Oil Paintings

[Zan Lynx]

What about oil paintings? Didn't a lot of the Old Masters paint nudes? I bet some of them broke up with the subjects of the painting too.

Re:I kinda see both sides.

[Registered Coward v2]

Unfortunately the screwy way copyright and the like work in the US, you get stupid things. Like my parents can't even make a digital print of their wedding picture. Because it's technically copyright to the photographer (who's dead) and the studio (which has been out of business for 35 years).

Never mind that the picture was a work for hire.

Actually, it probably wan't a work for hire; the contract probably allowed the photographer to keep the rights to the photo. After all, selling prints is how they made money. If you want the negatives and rights the costs for the shot would be higher since they would not make any money off of prints.

Never mind that they're the subjects of the picture.

Largely irrelevant. They photographer, unless the contract allowed it, couldn't sell the picture for say an advertisement for a store without a model release but simply being the subject doesn't give them rights to the picture. YMMV, depending on local laws and how famous the subject.

Never mind that the picture itself is fading and they're doing this for preservational purposes.

Given the circumstances, I would go ahead and make a digital copy. I doubt anyone will come after them.

So masturbatory fantasies are immoral?

[hsthompson69]

Wait, so you're not allowed to masturbate while thinking of someone once you break up with them? It's now immoral to have sexual fantasies?

Does this mean a girl who masturbates while fondling a diamond ring she got from her ex needs to return the diamond ring?

Re:So masturbatory fantasies are immoral?

[hsthompson69]

Maybe your practice of masturbation differs from mine, but it usually involves some significant "dwelling", and certainly happens "all the time".

I suppose some people are better at loving themselves than others :)

Re:Well done, Germany!

[pla]

Now laws like this need to be adopted by every country in this world, for the benefit of anyone, male or female.

Allowing withdrawal of consent after-the-fact has a hell of a lot of pretty damned scary implications that go way, way beyond shutting down "revenge porn" sites.

Personally, I would consider allowing someone to take pics of me during sex as more serious, due to its permanence, than the sex itself; so what happens when someone decides to withdraw consent for the actual sex (outside Sweden, of course, which already sets a precedent for rape-after-the-fact, and it has left them with the single most castrated male population on the planet)?

Not a good precedent. Attack the actual problem, don't create a tar-pit of a legal loophole to avoid directly addressing the problem. Hell, that same idea applies to most of the BS "X when done on a computer" crimes we so often rail against here on Slashdot. Why does the same thing get a pass when talking about "when done nude"?

Has Your Reputation Been Compromised by Photos?

[Irate Engineer]

Umm ... if you're in court asking this question, yes ... you're reputation is pretty fucked, no matter what the photograph contains.

Unless you are planning to make stripping and oblong vegetable porn a career - DON'T. LET. ANYONE. PHOTOGRAPH. YOU. WITH. A. ZUCCHINI. IN. YOUR. <ORIFICE>! Just don't do it. It's that easy folks to keep a good reputation with the puritans amongst us.

That means you could consent to sexual intercourse

[ayesnymous]

But then later withdraw that consent and file rape charges against your partner.

Typical of German authorities ... *sigh*

[garry_g]

Unless some A**hole posts private pictures after a break-up (or even during a relationship - most likely causing a break-up) - how is anybody going to prove somebody still has any pictures, or from the other side, prove that they deleted compromising pictures?

How long will it be until legislators, courts, etc. arrive in the 21st century? Or the late 20th, for that matter ... that would already be an improvement ...

Re:This only apply to "amateurs", or works for hir

[Dominare]

Not the same thing. Porn 'stars' sign a contract before they appear in films or magazines or whatever, just like models or other entertainment professionals. Thus there is a legally binding agreement covering who owns the rights to the resulting media preceding any photos or videos being created, which is a very different situation indeed to the one we're discussing now.

Lost in translation

[YoungManKlaus]

the article clearly states its all about distribution of these photos, which is a totally different thing and aims exactly at preventing revenge-porn-sites and similar crap. Of course you can keep smutty stuff if you dont release it and/or show it to others (though I think its your job to prove you didnt)

A complicated thing.

[drolli]

What really worries me about this is that such a thing cant be enforced or checked without decrypting all my storage, how unrelated it may be.

I find that court rulings should have the property of being enforcable without confiscating all of my stuff if i am not guilty (or accused) of any crime.

Re:That means you could consent to sexual intercou

[celle]

"...then later withdraw that consent and file rape charges against your partner."

      Haven't you noticed, this is exactly what's been going on the last few years.

What a surprise

[Draugo]

Well, women can already withdraw consent after sex (in some cases a long time after) and get men to prison for rape, this is just a milder case of that.