Justice Currey begins this opinion by saying: "This case underscores the critical need to educate our youth
about the evils of misogyny and sexual bullying, and the virtues
of respect, kindness, and compassion." Laudable goals, to be sure.
But "misogyny and sexual bullying" may understate the nature of the transgression here.
"R.C., then a
high school student, used his cellphone to record a video of a
classmate, K.V. — without her knowledge or permission — while
they were engaged in consensual sex. K.V. repeatedly asked him
to delete the video. In response, R.C. unsuccessfully tried to
condition deletion of the video on K.V.’s agreement to have sex
with R.C.’s friend."
That's not just sexist bullying. It's disgusting. The exact opposite -- I agree -- of "respect."
Ultimately, I agree with the Court of Appeal that the camera here was "concealed," though I think the issue's a close one. The cell phone camera wasn't "hidden" like you usually think the word entails. It was right out in the open.
But R.C. held the camera up (while they were having sex) behind her back, and didn't tell her that he had started recording until after. Putting it behind her back, where she couldn't see it, counts as that camera being "concealed." Since a reasonable factfinder could conclude that one reason R.C. put it there, rather than in front of her, when he started recording was to start filming without her consent.
I cannot tell you what I would do to any of my children if they did what R.C. did. (And that's even without the whole "I'll delete it the video if you have sex with my friend" stuff.) Because it would involve extraordinary measures.
