News article about video taping without verbal or written consent

Court says ex-teacher broke law by videotaping nude girlfriend
Pat Schneider — 12/31/2008 6:49 am
A former Waunakee High School chemistry teacher broke the law when he secretly recorded a nude girlfriend without her permission, a state appeals court said Tuesday. A dissenting judge said the court overstepped its bounds to reach that conclusion.
Mark Jahnke had argued that since his girlfriend agreed to be nude in his presence, she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, an important element required by the state statute outlawing recording someone in the nude without consent.
That reasoning is absurd, wrote Judge Paul Ludsten for a three-judge panel in District Four. Jahnke's argument would mean that his girlfriend's privacy interest in not being recorded in the nude was left unprotected any time she permitted anyone, under any circumstances, to view her nude, he said, and if it were legal to record her in those circumstances, it would be legal to distribute the recording.
"If she disrobes in a medical facility and permits medical personnel to view her, such personnel could record her" without violating the law," Ludsten wrote. "It is one thing to be viewed in the nude by a person at some point in time, but quite another to be recorded in the nude so that a recording exists that can be saved or distributed and viewed at a later time."
Jahnke pleaded guilty in 2007 to making a nude recording of his girlfriend and received probation and a withheld sentence pending the outcome of his appeal. It was stipulated to the court that he had not attempted to distribute the recording.
Judge Charles Dykman dissented, saying that the majority was impermissibly trying to modify its own past decision by changing its definition of "reasonable expectation of privacy."
In that case, the court said "reasonable expectation of privacy" requires that "the person who is depicted nude is in a circumstance in which he or she has an assumption that he or she is secluded from the presence or view of others."
The statute under which Jahnke was charged does not prohibit what Jahnke did, Dykman concluded. Whether a statute should prohibit Jahnke's conduct, he said, "is a question to be answered legislatively, not judicially. Judges should interpret legislation, not enact it."
Pat Schneider — 12/31/2008 6:49 am Court says ex-teacher broke law by videotaping nude girlfriend
Pat Schneider — 12/31/2008 6:49 am
A former Waunakee High School chemistry teacher broke the law when he secretly recorded a nude girlfriend without her permission, a state appeals court said Tuesday. A dissenting judge said the court overstepped its bounds to reach that conclusion.
Mark Jahnke had argued that since his girlfriend agreed to be nude in his presence, she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, an important element required by the state statute outlawing recording someone in the nude without consent.
That reasoning is absurd, wrote Judge Paul Ludsten for a three-judge panel in District Four. Jahnke's argument would mean that his girlfriend's privacy interest in not being recorded in the nude was left unprotected any time she permitted anyone, under any circumstances, to view her nude, he said, and if it were legal to record her in those circumstances, it would be legal to distribute the recording.
"If she disrobes in a medical facility and permits medical personnel to view her, such personnel could record her" without violating the law," Ludsten wrote. "It is one thing to be viewed in the nude by a person at some point in time, but quite another to be recorded in the nude so that a recording exists that can be saved or distributed and viewed at a later time."
Jahnke pleaded guilty in 2007 to making a nude recording of his girlfriend and received probation and a withheld sentence pending the outcome of his appeal. It was stipulated to the court that he had not attempted to distribute the recording.
Judge Charles Dykman dissented, saying that the majority was impermissibly trying to modify its own past decision by changing its definition of "reasonable expectation of privacy."
In that case, the court said "reasonable expectation of privacy" requires that "the person who is depicted nude is in a circumstance in which he or she has an assumption that he or she is secluded from the presence or view of others."
The statute under which Jahnke was charged does not prohibit what Jahnke did, Dykman concluded. Whether a statute should prohibit Jahnke's conduct, he said, "is a question to be answered legislatively, not judicially. Judges should interpret legislation, not enact it."
Pat Schneider — 12/31/2008 6:49 am

NOTE TO THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR TRYING TO HUMILIATE THIS GIRL WITH VIDEOS OF THIS GIRL AND VIDEOS OF A SEXUAL NATURE WITHOUT CONSENT. IM NOT GOING TO LET YOU CONTINUE TO GET AWAY WITH HUMILIATING THIS GIRL WITH SUCH ILLEGAL FOOTAGE. ALSO THE VIDEO TAPE THAT YOU SHOW INVOLVING SNOT, FROM 4YEARS AGO IS ALSO ON THE LIST. LIKE I WOULD HAVE DONE THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF A PUBLIC FORUM. I WAS IN WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE PRIVACY OF MY OWN DWELLING SPACE. YOU ARE PUSHING A FINE LINE BETWEEN TOLERANCE OF YOUR BEHAVIOR AND AN ALL OUT MISSION TO NAIL YOU.