From: Thorn4MyRose

First of all, welcome 'a-Board', Counselor. I think that through availing this space, Dr. Brame is providing yet another potentially magnificent resource, but I have to admit that I was a little skeptical about how this section of the board might be handled. As for what's been posted so far though, I commend the responsible manner in which you're approaching it. Glad to have you here.

So, here are a couple of broad, open-ended questions for you (and I sincerely hope they don't put you on the spot):

Understanding that specific legal matters are best addressed by a locally competent legal professional, and also understanding that you might not be able to discuss specific cases involving BDSM aspects that you've handled, what would you say based on your direct experience(s) are the top things people should consider when developing effective strategies for legal protection in situations incorporating BDSM elements? Are there certain things (pre-emptive or otherwise) that you've come across over the course of your career that proved successful when they had to be applied in handling a client's legal needs?

Please feel free to interpret these in the most convenient manner. I'm sure you could easily end up writing a book in response.

Regards,
Thorn

There are some measures that you should take. And most of these are just common sense. You should know the person with whom you are having intimate relations of any sort. For example, finding someone on the net and engaging in intimate relations without a very good
idea of who that person is and what that person wants is a formula for disaster. The Oliver Jovanovic case in NYC (you can find various excellent treatments of the implications of that
matter on the web) is very good example of what can happen if you are not extremely careful.
    If you examine that case (and the UK Spanner case) you will see that you cannot consent to
an illegal act. So, if there is a touching which can be interpreted as an assault, you may be in serious criminal trouble.
    If you are placed in a position in which the police become involved, do not talk to them. Period. The line is "Talk to my lawyer". The general inclination is to try to talk your way of a frightening and embarrassing situation, especially if the police are playing the usual "good
cop/bad cop" routine. Their object is to get an admission. Don't be intimidated, even if you
are arrested. Keep your mouth shut. Lawyers will be there to do the talking when it is
appropriate.
    Often, people think that if there is a pattern of behavior which is recorded, acknowledged and agreed to, that this record is sufficient protection. Now, this may of some utility and I would not recommend against it but it may be inadmissible and indeed irrelevant (see my previous point about not being able to consent to certain acts)
    This may all sound rather dire but lawyers always deal in worst case scenarios. If you at all
concerned about anything you may consider doing, my constant refrain is: see an attorney
be honest and frank and find out what the state of the law is in your area. I hope that helps and best wishes, F.R. McDermott

Hola, Cpt.Stennes.

This internet kiddie porn arrest in Texas (and I'm NOT condoning kiddie porn) leads me to suspect what type of BDSM sites better watch their backs.

Hello, Crash. Which arrest are you referring to? Do you have a URL for us, by any chance?

Thanks!

Gloria

Aha! Found it myself. Here is AP's report on this breaking story:

-----------------------

Feds Arrest 100 for Child Porn Ring

By KAREN GULLO
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Aug. 8) - One hundred subscribers to child pornography Web sites have been arrested in an undercover investigation into what authorities say is the largest commercial child porn business ever uncovered in the United States.

The 2-year-old ''Operation Avalanche'' investigation led by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service began with Landslide Productions Inc., a Fort Worth, Texas, Internet company that provided users who paid a monthly fee with links to child pornography Web sites with names like ''Cyber Lolita'' and ''Child Rape.''

Subscribers also could place or respond to classified and personal ads for child pornography. They were caught by federal undercover agents who had taken over the Landslide Web site and contacted its users. When subscribers ordered child pornography delivered to their homes, agents moved in with search warrants.

Announcing the results of the investigation Wednesday, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the arrests will help ensure ''that cyberspace does not become a free-fire zone to target children.''

Hundreds of children were used in the operation; most have not been identified.

The Internet site had around 250,000 subscribers, many from overseas. Because they don't have the resources to go after all of them, authorities said they focused on the most egregious offenders here in the United States. Some of those arrested were child molesters, authorities said.

Among the subscribers arrested since May 2000 include:

- A 36-year-old computer consultant from North Carolina accused of producing videos depicting abuse of young girls, including a 4-year-old, and recording his activities on a hidden camera that was connected to a VCR and a computer.

- A 39-year-old West Virginia man who worked at a psychiatric hospital for sexually abused children and was alleged to have a large collection of child pornography.

- The former fire chief of Sweetwater, Tenn., who was accused of using a city-owned computer to download and store child pornography images.

Investigators conducted 144 searches in 37 states, including 18 in Texas, 11 in New York, nine in California and eight in Pennsylvania. The names of those arrested were not released. Police said one subscriber who was arrested has committed suicide.

Arrests were made as recently as last week, and authorities are continuing to pursue subscribers, officials said.

Authorities say a key to clamping down on child molesters is tracking down people who collect child pornography. Kenneth Weaver, chief of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, said about 36 percent of those investigated for possession or trafficking of child pornography turn out to be child molesters.

Landslide's owners, Thomas and Janice Reedy of Fort Worth, charged customers about $29.95 a month to access child porn sites operated primarily by overseas webmasters, authorities said. Landslide grossed as much as $1.4 million a month.

The Reedys lived in a mansion and drove fancy cars. Last year, they were charged in an 89-count federal indictment with conspiracy to distribute and possession of child pornography. A federal judge on Monday sentenced Thomas Reedy to 1,335 years in prison and Janice Reedy to 14 years.

The bulk of the pornographic material available through Landslide came from overseas, including from Russia and Indonesia. Authorities said some of the children involved were American.

An 8-year-old girl and her 6-year-old brother, both from England, are among the few youngsters depicted in the materials who have been identified. Law enforcement officials hope that some of those arrested will help identify child victims in exchange for leniency.

Five international webmasters have been indicted; none has been arrested, authorities said.

Landslide provided a credit card verification service that admitted customers into Web sites containing graphic pictures and videos of children engaging in sex acts with adults and with each other, the government charged.

Operation Avalanche was conducted by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Dallas Police Department and state and local law enforcement groups.

 AP-NY-08-08-01 1717EDT

Ohh!

I caught the end of that on the news tonight.

This case, the one in Ohio and the new SC law are all stickey wiccets to me. On the one hand, I would have no problem loading the gun for the state to blow the brains out of a child molester who is also filming it to sell. But it seems that its going to possible lead to censorship via "protection for innocents". It looks to me as if the door is going to be opened up enough for Big Brother to slam his foot in. I am use to being wrong, I hope I am again.

Justin Medlin
Young Dinosaur
   With
Poodle Flair

I have no sympathy for child molesters.

What does interest me, however, is how the government pursues these cases, how the media reports them, and how the public and politicians react. Like you, I wonder if a hysteria will take hold that will cause people to insist that other types of sexual activities--even though conducted between consenting adults--should be monitored or if laws usually ignored should start being enforced. (Remember--much of what BDSMers do is going to be illegal somewhere.)

So I follow these pedophilia stories with some interest, hoping that the target of law enforcement remains fixed on people who harm children, and not people who enjoy mutually pleasurable (albeit kinky) sex with fellow adults.

We'll see.....

Glory

My take on this story, which I have followed, is this: The abominable and disgusting acts of these degenerate scum, if I could be more harsh I would, have nothing to do with the practices discussed on this site. Unlike anyone else on this site, I have defended, as an attorney, accused child abusers. There is simply no relation between child abuse and the sexual practices of consenting adults. Any such implication is ridiculous, incredible and beyond the pale. Sexual abuse of children is idiosyncratic and a result of severe mental disorder. It has nothing to do with any discussion on this website.
     As for the particulars, I understand that this unsatisfactory couple had set up a website which was pornographic in nature and thru which they solicited subscribers. Various tastes were pandered to . One of those tastes, thanks to the omnivorous appetite of the audience, was child pornography. Few took advantage of this offering. Few would. Few are so impaired, pathetic and evil. Thank goodness.
     Child abusers are few and far between. I have seen, and defended, more than my fair share of such persons. Some have proved to be completely innocent. Others have been shown to be guilty and have suffered the full penalty of the law. And that is as it should be.
     I think that it entirely inappropriate to relate any issues discussed on this site to any matters having anything to do with child pornography. It is an entirely different animal. While certain adult practices may be of dubious legality in any particular jurisdiction, adult practices have nothing to do with child exploitation which is hideous, beyond my conception and the conception of any sane person, and not merely illegal but evil. I hope that I have made my position clear. Regards, F.

The case against Oliver Jovanovic has been dismissed. For those who do not know, this case started about five years ago and involved serious issues of BDSM. Jovanovic was a graduate student in microbiology who met a partner on the internet. They got together after emailing back and forth. What happened at that point resulted in a conviction on more than one felony count for Mr. Jovanovic. The claim by the lady was that he tortured her, more or less.
Their emails were excluded from evidence and so was her sexual history. This, from my reading, was due to the rape shield laws in NYC. So Jovanovic was convicted, I believe of assault, kidnapping, etc. He spent 20 months in prison.
     The conviction was overturned based on the exclusion of evidence.
      The question of her ability to consent to what Jovanovic was alleged to have done was not, to my knowledge, an issue.
      The case was scheduled for retrial. Jury selection was about to begin. The lady did not appear and the case was dismissed.
       It is reported that Jovanovic spent $500,000.00 on his defense.
       You can find the history of this case in the NYTimes site or you can search the name Oliver Jovanovic and find more there.
         It is a cautionary tale.
         While the result was ultimately good, in my judgment, it does nothing to resolve the issue of consent in BDSM practices nor does it give Mr. Jovanovic back his life or his money.
          The moral of the story is (1) know with whom you are playing (2) intolerance and misunderstanding of BDSM practices is extreme and (3) there are serious consequences for a misstep. Regards, F.

There have been a number of messages that indicate a departure from common sense. Nothing and certainly not the law, can protect you from your own foolishness. Let us get this clear, BDSM is for erotic gratification. It is not a vehicle for the abolition of independent thought and personal responsibility. If you want that, talk to Osama Bin Laden.
    Do not do the following things: (1) do not play with someone you do not know (2) do not submit to abuse (3) do not give up, or believe that you have given up, your ability to end a relationship (4) do not place yourself in a position in which you need legal counsel to solve the situation, unless, of course, you are in a marriage. (and you should not get married unless you are willing to accept the consequences and understand the foregoing)
     None of the foregoing are, or should be, erotic. Or, if they are, should not be acted upon. If you think that there is a problem, then there is a problem. If it cannot be worked out, then end the relationship. Do not accept unreasonable demands. Do not engage in unsafe practices. Nor should anyone make unreasonable demands or ask for the unreasonable. There are certain mores in this lifestyle as I understand it.
      Everything has a boundary and one of those boundaries is yourself. Your ego, the "I". I would expect that submission entails, axiomatically, the existance of a person. The law, to get back to the point of this board, will not recognize, nor should it the exintguishment of the ego. Nor is it reasonable for a dominant to demand that. Up means that there must be a down. But the down exists. There is an old joke "I am the boss here and you are nothing! Reply, Some job boss over nothing"
        An unreasonable demand is a serious matter and something to be seriously considered. What is the motive? Is this erotic control or something else? The answer is clear if the question arises, then it is something else. The answer being contained in the question then the solution is clear. Go elsewhere. Ultimately, you must protect yourself and do so. The law is an aftermath. Go and seek but remain yourself. Regards, F.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/

Interesting stuff on these pages... Does it appear accurate to you, Hot.Law? :)

Check out Utah!

"4 (2) Unlawful sexual intercourse is a felony of the third degree except when at the time of
5 intercourse the actor is no more than three years older than the victim, in which case it is a class
6 B misdemeanor. Evidence that the actor was not more than three years older than the victim at the
7 time of the intercourse shall be raised by the defendant."

If I'm reading this right, the charges of rapeing someone would be weakened if there's a three year or less difference between the rapist and the victim?

....What exactly do politicions think of when passing laws?.......

It looks to me as if 'unlawful sexual intercourse' means sex with a minor [statutory rape], rather than rape?

Thanks for the link - it's an interesting site.

Well all, I am absolutely opposed to any play with anyone who may be or who may thought to be underage
No one should do it, no one should think about it and it is fundamentally obnoxious and wrong. That said, If is not clear enough, reading of a part of statute without the rest of the statute and the underlying case law gives one just enough information to be incredibly wrong. Sex with minors is a bad thing, just about the worst thing you can do without murder and if you are thinking about it, get help. Yes, the statutory age of consent is arbitrary. So what? It is a boundary which was set centuries ago and you must respect it. And you should respect it. The results of ignoring such are disastrous for all concerned. And idiotic. Vvide the priest cases. Regards, F.

Oops, I certainly wasn't planning or advocating sex with minors. I just thought that probably 'unlawful sexual intercourse' in the quoted passage referred to sex with a minor - e.g. if the age of consent was 17 and a 17 year old had sex with a 16 year old, they would be facing a lesser charge than a 21 year old who had sex with a 16 year old. Like success, I couldn't see any sense in the three year age difference applying to adult rape, so I was just giving an alternative interpretation. The title of the post said 'General posting for all' so I just jumped in there without thinking. I'm sorry.

Jewel

Sorry too, this is a hot button issue. If that is not too colloquial. It does give an instance of how laws can be misconstrued. What you find in the books is not to be interpreted by laymen. Generally laws are written thus: Some goofball state representative gets an idea and that idea is reinterpreted thus and so by his or her assistants according to the canons of legislative drafting. And you are bound by that. What your interpretation is may not be that as interpreted by a judge. You never want to be in a forum explaining yourself and why this does not apply to what you have done or failed to do. Expensive at least, in many ways. This is a dangerous area and not to be treated lightly. For any number of reasons. Leave people of tender age alone. There are enough pitfalls in BDSM without ventures into realms of the unitiated. 21 is a good age and then you have to be very very very careful. Good luck and I did not mean to insult but merely to inform. Regards, F.

I realize that it is improbable to ask about specific state laws, as they vary greatly. However I was wondering if there is a basic place to start looking in each state? I am willing to do any research myself but I have no clue where to begin to look for such specific laws in my state (Illinois). I have covered the 'official' state website and it does not cover laws of any kind nor does it have links to such.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Blessings & Peace,
Alexis

You cannot learn a great deal from looking at state codes. Good to read them though. There are also state and county and municipal ordinances which may or may not be on the web. Further, all of these laws and ordinances are written by semi-literate legislators and interpreted by judges. Now, law in
Anglo-Saxon countries are based on the law in the books, statutes, and the common law, the law as interpreted in cases. This is all binding (if that is a pun, pardon it) Oddly, and to my knowledge, bestiality is ok in Illinois. Don't count on it, only what I have heard. So, you have to rely, in so far as you can on the word on the street. Therefore, e.g., no fun in Virginia. I would say, purely on a unreliable and stochastic basis, that freedom is more likely to found in urban areas. In those places, notably, from what I have heard, New York City, DC and San Francisco, have better things to do than investigate consensual sexual relations. But don't count on it, thanks to ambitious prosecutors and strange police.Regards, F.

In March I am meeting my new Dom in Boston. He is traveling from a foreign country so has requested that I bring the toys. I am traveling from the southwest to Boston and am hesitant to carry the toys with me in my bags as friends who have made the trip recently have advised me that their bags were checked four or five times on the trip. So, my question is two fold.....1) is it illegal to bring various BDSM toys in your bags and can they be confiscated and 2) I was considering Fed Ex ing or mailing them to the hotel where I will be staying. Is there any legal ramifications in doing that?
Any advice anyone can give me on this will be greatly appreciated.
And thank you, thank you, thank you.......this site is a godsend for those of us with a lot of questions and no answers.

Good question, passionsdiva. I have not flown with toys lately, but know folks who have done so. They packed the toys, and checked the luggage with no problems. However, I believe that random inspections of checked bags will be increasing. As to Fed Ex and the Post Office, all shipped materials - especially boxes and cartons - are likely for inspection before the container is sealed and accepted for shipment. I would certainly not take any metal toys or anything that would would be unusually obvious on xray or scanner. The bottom line most likely is to see where security is going in the next month or so, and be guided accordingly. Don't forget, the FAA will be assuming security responsibility over the next several months. As trained federal inspectors come on board, there may be changes in the process.

:)
Paul

You can count on your bags being checked. So, you might be embarrassed. But if the toys are not or do not resemble weapons, I don't see any other problem. Regards, F.

Regarding carrying toys on planes: The key is commonsense and lots of good humour. Now that all baggage is subject to inspection, many airports, including SFO, which don’t always have qualified checked baggage X-Ray operators on duty, resort to manual searches of both hand and checked baggage. Passengers are not allowed to touch their possessions, during, and checked bags, after the searches. I travel to and from Germany monthly, and this has become as routine a U.S. occurrence as it has been in Europe for many years. Indeed, a couple of years ago the steel core of my riding crop lead to three searches for just one flight from Gatwick…What a chuckle! But there are amusing occasions. The best was when an elderly lady, just in front of me, (I’m pretty sure not in the scene), was challenged by a pint sized female inspector at Heathrow. The official removed a leather dog collar and chain leash from the lady’s case and jested, “These are a bit on the small side for him aren’t they?” gesturing to her husband. The lady quipped, “Ooh! He’s been house-trained for years!” There was a knitted dog’s jacket in the case too!

And only yesterday, on my way from Frankfurt to SFO, my attention was immediately caught by the fall/keeper of a slender dressage whip as it bobbed above the base-ball caps and heads of passengers waiting in line for seat assignments at the gate. A very polite Indian security official approached the owner, a friendly faced, (I'm sure not equestrienne) woman, accompanied by a preppily attired, professorial, male companion in his 60s. She explained it was too long for their case, and the official said he’d screen it to see if she could carry it on. So away he marched with said riding whip, several pairs of eyes marching in unison. He returned after a few minutes and explained it was no problem at all. Officials outside the U.S. have been doing this for years and, having seen just about everything, are usually unfazed. (No! For those of you who are wondering, the pilot didn’t fly any faster! But I’ll bet the professor does!).

Future.