Loading...
Title : The question whether Harvey Weinstein's "casting couch" behavior is a "commercial sex act" under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.
link : The question whether Harvey Weinstein's "casting couch" behavior is a "commercial sex act" under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.
The question whether Harvey Weinstein's "casting couch" behavior is a "commercial sex act" under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.
I see that Judge Robert Sweet is presiding over a civil case in the Southern District of New York, in which a woman named Kadian Noble is suing Weinstein under the federal Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.I remember Judge Sweet from when I clerked for a Southern District judge in 1981-82. How old is he? 95! Amazing to work to such an old age. I've always liked Judge Sweet, not because I've followed him over the years, but because of one case he decided in the year when I worked in the same courthouse.
In United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, he had said that since the movie "Deep Throat" was playing all over the Southern District of New York, it must fit "community standards" and therefore could not be obscene within the First Amendment doctrine.* I was no fan of "Deep Throat" (never saw it, never cared to see it), but I've always hated censorship, and I loved the idea — my personal translation of the meaning of the case — that nothing could ever be obscene in New York City.
Anyway, in this new case, Judge Sweet is now being asked to certify an appeal of his decision about what is a "commercial sex act" within the meaning of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.
In his decision, Sweet acknowledged navigating "unchartered waters"** on this issue and even paused a moment to consider —if quickly reject — Weinstein's hypothetical about an individual who treats a person to a free dinner, promises future gifts, and then attempts to engage in activity which he construes as consensual sexual activity.Weinstein's lawyers want a more limited meaning to "commercial sex act." Note that Congress passed the statute using its Commerce Power, and courts will normally interpret a statute to avoid a constitutional problem. But it was a commercial setting, the movie business, not some personal date. Weinstein's lawyers are just stressing that there was "no actual exchange of value," just "a fraudulent 'promise.'"
Is that sex trafficking? "Notably absent from this hypothetical are the necessary elements of force, fraud, and commerce, all of which have been established here," responded Sweet.
The judge added, "The contention... that Noble was given nothing of value — that the expectation of a film role, of a modeling meeting, of 'his people' being 'in touch with her' had no value — does not reflect modern reality. Even if the prospect of a film role, of a modeling meeting, and of a continued professional relationship with [The Weinstein Co.] were not 'things of value' sufficient to satisfy commercial aspect of the sex act definition, Noble's reasonable expectation of receiving those things in the future, based on Harvey's repeated representations that she would, is sufficient."...
____________________________
* After the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was boring enough to reverse, Judge Sweet still reached the same result, finding the material not patently offensive under contemporary community standards. In that later opinion, he wrote this about the value of pornography for old people:
[A]t an Address to the American Psychological Association on August 23, 1982, the behavioral psychologist, B.F. Skinner, cited the theologian Paul Tillich and his defense of "pornography on the ground that it extended sexuality into old age." Meyer, B.F. Skinner on Behaving His Age, The Washington Post, Aug. 24, 1982, at Bl.Judge Sweet was 60 when he wrote that, 35 years ago.
Much of what we call aging, he said, is not an inexorable biological process, but a change in the physical and social environment. As vision, hearing and taste fade, and erogenous tissues grow less sensitive, the elderly become bored, discouraged and depressed. They no longer receive powerful reinforcement from the environment, and fewer things seem worth doing. But that can be changed, he said. Foods can be highly flavored, pornography can be used to extend sexuality into old age, those who can't read can listen to book recordings.N.Y. Times, Aug. 24, 1982, § C, at 2. The remarks of Skinner and Tillich suggest the beneficial utility of pornography and to that extent serve to modify this court's prior conclusion that these materials lack serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value.
** I'm not looking at the original text of the opinion, but I doubt that Sweet wrote "unchartered waters" instead of the correct "uncharted waters."
Loading...
I see that Judge Robert Sweet is presiding over a civil case in the Southern District of New York, in which a woman named Kadian Noble is suing Weinstein under the federal Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.
I remember Judge Sweet from when I clerked for a Southern District judge in 1981-82. How old is he? 95! Amazing to work to such an old age. I've always liked Judge Sweet, not because I've followed him over the years, but because of one case he decided in the year when I worked in the same courthouse.
In United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, he had said that since the movie "Deep Throat" was playing all over the Southern District of New York, it must fit "community standards" and therefore could not be obscene within the First Amendment doctrine.* I was no fan of "Deep Throat" (never saw it, never cared to see it), but I've always hated censorship, and I loved the idea — my personal translation of the meaning of the case — that nothing could ever be obscene in New York City.
Anyway, in this new case, Judge Sweet is now being asked to certify an appeal of his decision about what is a "commercial sex act" within the meaning of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.
____________________________
* After the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was boring enough to reverse, Judge Sweet still reached the same result, finding the material not patently offensive under contemporary community standards. In that later opinion, he wrote this about the value of pornography for old people:
** I'm not looking at the original text of the opinion, but I doubt that Sweet wrote "unchartered waters" instead of the correct "uncharted waters."
I remember Judge Sweet from when I clerked for a Southern District judge in 1981-82. How old is he? 95! Amazing to work to such an old age. I've always liked Judge Sweet, not because I've followed him over the years, but because of one case he decided in the year when I worked in the same courthouse.
In United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, he had said that since the movie "Deep Throat" was playing all over the Southern District of New York, it must fit "community standards" and therefore could not be obscene within the First Amendment doctrine.* I was no fan of "Deep Throat" (never saw it, never cared to see it), but I've always hated censorship, and I loved the idea — my personal translation of the meaning of the case — that nothing could ever be obscene in New York City.
Anyway, in this new case, Judge Sweet is now being asked to certify an appeal of his decision about what is a "commercial sex act" within the meaning of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.
In his decision, Sweet acknowledged navigating "unchartered waters"** on this issue and even paused a moment to consider —if quickly reject — Weinstein's hypothetical about an individual who treats a person to a free dinner, promises future gifts, and then attempts to engage in activity which he construes as consensual sexual activity.Weinstein's lawyers want a more limited meaning to "commercial sex act." Note that Congress passed the statute using its Commerce Power, and courts will normally interpret a statute to avoid a constitutional problem. But it was a commercial setting, the movie business, not some personal date. Weinstein's lawyers are just stressing that there was "no actual exchange of value," just "a fraudulent 'promise.'"
Is that sex trafficking? "Notably absent from this hypothetical are the necessary elements of force, fraud, and commerce, all of which have been established here," responded Sweet.
The judge added, "The contention... that Noble was given nothing of value — that the expectation of a film role, of a modeling meeting, of 'his people' being 'in touch with her' had no value — does not reflect modern reality. Even if the prospect of a film role, of a modeling meeting, and of a continued professional relationship with [The Weinstein Co.] were not 'things of value' sufficient to satisfy commercial aspect of the sex act definition, Noble's reasonable expectation of receiving those things in the future, based on Harvey's repeated representations that she would, is sufficient."...
____________________________
* After the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was boring enough to reverse, Judge Sweet still reached the same result, finding the material not patently offensive under contemporary community standards. In that later opinion, he wrote this about the value of pornography for old people:
[A]t an Address to the American Psychological Association on August 23, 1982, the behavioral psychologist, B.F. Skinner, cited the theologian Paul Tillich and his defense of "pornography on the ground that it extended sexuality into old age." Meyer, B.F. Skinner on Behaving His Age, The Washington Post, Aug. 24, 1982, at Bl.Judge Sweet was 60 when he wrote that, 35 years ago.
Much of what we call aging, he said, is not an inexorable biological process, but a change in the physical and social environment. As vision, hearing and taste fade, and erogenous tissues grow less sensitive, the elderly become bored, discouraged and depressed. They no longer receive powerful reinforcement from the environment, and fewer things seem worth doing. But that can be changed, he said. Foods can be highly flavored, pornography can be used to extend sexuality into old age, those who can't read can listen to book recordings.N.Y. Times, Aug. 24, 1982, § C, at 2. The remarks of Skinner and Tillich suggest the beneficial utility of pornography and to that extent serve to modify this court's prior conclusion that these materials lack serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value.
** I'm not looking at the original text of the opinion, but I doubt that Sweet wrote "unchartered waters" instead of the correct "uncharted waters."
Thus articles The question whether Harvey Weinstein's "casting couch" behavior is a "commercial sex act" under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.
that is all articles The question whether Harvey Weinstein's "casting couch" behavior is a "commercial sex act" under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015. This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article The question whether Harvey Weinstein's "casting couch" behavior is a "commercial sex act" under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015. with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-question-whether-harvey-weinsteins.html
0 Response to "The question whether Harvey Weinstein's "casting couch" behavior is a "commercial sex act" under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015."
Post a Comment