Is Mel Gibson a Victim?
Like most people with an internet connection, I lost irretrievable minutes of my life listening to Mel Gibson's racist, enraged, and occasionally terrifying telephone conversations with the mother of his child this week. I stopped listening after the third one, but I think we're on tape number five now. Obviously, the things Gibson says are abhorrent and prove that he is an irredeemable asshole who should never again be respected or admired by anyone. Even so, I can't seem to figure out why he is not also the victim of a crime.
California's anti-recording statute basically makes it a crime to record a private conversation unless both parties to the conversation consent. Since it's doubtful Gibson consented to these recordings, the only possibly applicable exceptions are Sections 633.5 and 633.6, which state:
Concrete information on whether and when Oksana Grigorieva filed for a restraining order is hard to come by, so her best bet is probably Section 633.5. But under that section, she would have to prove she made the recordings for the purpose of obtaining evidence related to a felony, and not for some other purpose, like justifiably ruining what's left of Gibson's miserable career. Releasing the tapes to RadarOnline every couple of days seems to undercut that argument.
So what do you think, California legal experts? Is there a crime here? Would any prosecutor bother pursuing it? Do any of you still like Braveheart? Why?
California's anti-recording statute basically makes it a crime to record a private conversation unless both parties to the conversation consent. Since it's doubtful Gibson consented to these recordings, the only possibly applicable exceptions are Sections 633.5 and 633.6, which state:
633.5. Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 prohibits one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, or a violation of Section 653m.
633.6. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, and in accordance with federal law, upon the request of a victim of domestic violence who is seeking a domestic violence restraining order, a judge issuing the order may include a provision in the order that permits the victim to record any prohibited communication made to him or her by the perpetrator.
Concrete information on whether and when Oksana Grigorieva filed for a restraining order is hard to come by, so her best bet is probably Section 633.5. But under that section, she would have to prove she made the recordings for the purpose of obtaining evidence related to a felony, and not for some other purpose, like justifiably ruining what's left of Gibson's miserable career. Releasing the tapes to RadarOnline every couple of days seems to undercut that argument.
So what do you think, California legal experts? Is there a crime here? Would any prosecutor bother pursuing it? Do any of you still like Braveheart? Why?
posted by Dan at 5:17 PM
45 Comments:
Are we sure this is bad for his career?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzXkbJwrN38
Wow, that's unsettling. Although Sean Connery's career isn't exactly exploding either.
I don't think the Sean Connery video is unsettling. He not saying it's okay to beat people or hurt people or anything like that. He's saying that there are times when it is not inappropriate to slap another person. Even though it is not PC, I agree.
People like Barbara Walters get wound up over his statement only because the slappee happens to be a woman instead of a man. They think it is totally appropriate for a woman to slap a man when he is being crazy and unreasonable, but not vice versa. I am bracing for angry comments, but I really do believe that if it is okay for a woman to slap a man, it is okay for a man to slap a woman, so long as the effect and circumstances are okay.
Remember, it is only a slap, not hitting or beating.
Should say, "so long as the effect and circumstances are *the same in both cases*."
Also, Mel Gibson isn't a victim here. Karma is a bitch. He's getting exactly what he has earned.
@7:50, look up the elements of battery again. It is not ok for either a man or a woman to hit their significant other. The end.
@7:53, I think it's pretty clear in the text of my post that I don't think Mel Gibson has been victimized in a moral sense, only that her may technically be the victim of a crime. I disagree that he got exactly what he earned only in that I think he deserves far worse than what has happened to him.
*he
I sawr a bear once.
X is illegal therefore X must be morally wrong?
Awesome argument.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hitting another person is ok if they provoke you enough? Awesome argument.
7:50 said that "there are times when it is not inappropriate to slap another person." Connery said that one of those times is when a woman insists on getting the last word, and then keeps nagging at you even after that. I can't think of any times when it's appropriate (or "not inappropriate") to slap another person, as far as I'm concerned. But nonetheless, I do think it's possible to agree with 7:50 and disagree with Connery.
I haven't looked into this at all, but I believe if you have a restraining order against somebody you can check a box on the restraining order form seeking permission to tape phone calls.
oh sorry. i stink at reading. you got that.
"Hitting another person is ok if they provoke you enough? Awesome argument."
This response doesn't really make your initial argument any better, Dan.
Do you really think that if something is illegal it is necessarily morally wrong?
-9:00 (not 7:50)
Of course not. Show me where I said that. I said that Battery is morally wrong. Am I the only one a little surprised that I'm actually arguing over whether spousal abuse can sometimes be ok? I kind of thought, as a society, we were pretty solidly in the anti-domestic violence camp.
"look up the elements of battery again. It is not ok for either a man or a woman to hit their significant other. The end."
It seems like your support for saying that "it is not ok for either a man or a woman to hit their significant other" comes exclusively from "the elements of battery." Thus, I assumed (incorrectly?) that you were arguing that because the elements of battery say hitting is illegal, it is morally wrong to hit someone (i.e., that "it is not ok . . . to hit"). Or, in reduced form, X is illegal, therefore X is morally wrong.
I think the boiled down version of what Dan said is more properly: Battery is immoral. The elements of battery properly define battery. Slapping someone violates the elements of battery. Therefore slapping someone is immoral.
You err by making his claim over broad by asserting that he is basing his argument on any legal violation resulting in immorality.
Why are the elements of battery automatically immoral? Doesn't that assertion need some support?
If you agree with me that it does, where is Dan's support?
Ooo, Sean, I think you've found a nifty trick - assuming your conclusions!
Can I try? Can I? Can I?
Here, let me try: pot smoking is morally wrong; drug laws properly define pot smoking; therefore violating pot laws is morally wrong.
Or, how about: jaywalking is morally wrong; laws defining jaywalking are accurate; therefore violating jaywalking statutes is morally wrong.
Pretty cool, huh?
The neat thing about the nifty trick you showed us is that it can be used for anything! Watch this: fucking 8 year old boys is morally RIGHT; the law accurately defines 'fucking 8 year old boys' but it punishes the act; the law is therefore morally wrong.
I admire your clever idea, Sean. All you have to do is just assume the very conclusion for which you are arguing. The rest just falls in to place. Neat-o!
....idiot.
Wrong again. What Dan did was rely on a basic premise which he found to be uncontroversial, namely that hitting people is wrong. You are welcome to challenge that premise. I would likely challenge the baseline premise that "fucking 8 year old boys is morally RIGHT" were you to pose the syllogism to me.
Every argument relies on some base assumption which the person posing the argument thinks everyone involved can agree is true. It seems that in this case you do not agree that hitting people is wrong as a general matter. As such, it would be a separate argument to support that premise.
The role of the battery statute in Dan's argument was not to establish the moral weight of the proposition, but rather to show that slapping falls in the general category of moral wrongs entailed by battery. He asserted as a basic assumption that hitting people is wrong.
The problem you raise (and which you feel I am an idiot for not understanding) is that you can make arguments which are valid (conclusion is logically compelled by the premises if they are assumed to be true) but are unsound (premises are not actually true). I assert that your display of a basic tenant of logic as somehow enlightening, and then backing it up with ad hominem, does very little to establish that I am in idiot.
As far as whether his premises need more support, they only need more support if people disagree, which it seems they do. My point was just that anon mischaracterized Dan's arguments by claiming it was "X is illegal therefore X is immoral."
Sean,
7:50 argued that "there are times when it is not inappropriate to slap another person." I.e., that it is sometimes okay to hit people.
Dan then responded that "look up the elements of battery again. It is not ok for either a man or a woman to hit their significant other." I.e., Dan argued that it is never okay to hit people.
You are now saying that "what Dan did was rely on a basic premise which he found to be uncontroversial, namely that hitting people is wrong."
However, that "basic premise" is the entire crux of the argument. Therefore, Dan (through you) is assuming his conclusion.
On the other hand, Dan is not assuming his conclusion if he was instead asserting that hitting people is wrong because hitting people is illegal.
-9:00/10:44/10:33/10:51
It seemed to me more like Dan was arguing that the statement "Remember, it is only a slap, not hitting or beating." is incorrect, and that a slap is just as much of a hit as the others.
I think the title of this post should be, "Is Dan a Victim?"
I can reword the argument if you want, but I don't see how what you said changes anything.
7:50 argued that "there are times when it is not inappropriate to slap another person." I.e., that it is sometimes okay to hit people if it won't cause serious injury.
Dan then responded that "look up the elements of battery again. It is not ok for either a man or a woman to hit their significant other." I.e., Dan argued that it is never okay to hit people and therefore it is never okay to slap someone.
Whether or not it is sometimes okay to hit someone is still the crux of the argument. In other words, Dan can't assume as a basic premise that it is never okay to hit someone when the entire discussion is about whether it is sometimes okay to hit someone. Isn't that assuming the conclusion?
-9:00
you know who needs slapped? everyone in this thread.
"Whether or not it is sometimes okay to hit someone is still the crux of the argument."
Well, the person I quoted argued that slapping was not hitting. So that would make the crux is slapping hitting or not, which Dan responded was hitting based on the agreed to definition of hitting, the battery statute.
BUT NOTWITHSTANDING ALL OF THAT, Dan could probably clarify what he meant better than we could!
No, no, no.
"So that would make the crux is slapping hitting or not, which Dan responded was hitting based on the agreed to definition of hitting, the battery statute."
7:50 pretty clearly was arguing that slapping is fine because it doesn't really cause that much damage. 7:50 then decided to throw in the hitting/beating comparison so everyone would understand the point more clearly.
But explaining what he/she meant doesn't somehow turn the issue into whether slapping should be defined as "hitting."* The issue is still whether it's okay in some circumstances to hit/slap/touch someone.
* And the elements of battery don't even do this. Battery just makes an "unconsented touching" illegal.
/s/ Sean
Counsel for Defendant DAN.
It is perfectly alright for Dan to argue that slapping counts as hitting if his opponent, in clarifying the low amount of damage slapping causes, concedes that hitting (and beating) is wrong. If he succeeds, then he established that since slapping is hitting, and hitting is wrong by the opponent's own reasoning, then slapping too is wrong.
Although I think you are correct in saying that Battery does not really capture hitting specifically, it seemed like that was the thrust of Dan's argument.
Really? You think that 7:50 would concede that "hitting" is wrong if the definition of "hitting" also includes slapping?
7:50 implied that "hitting" is wrong only because 7:50's definition of "hitting" did not include slapping. To say that the substance of 7:50's argument is wrong because slapping is included in a different definition of "hitting" is just ridiculous. That argument doesn't address the substance of 7:50's point at all.
C'mon, dude.
Often times people say something does not count as a member of a certain category, but later are convinced that in fact that thing does count.
For example, if I said "Remember, it is only soccer, not a sport or challenge," it would be silly (and circular) to argue against people who contend that soccer meets the definition of a sport by saying "Clearly it does not, because I defined sport as not including soccer." If someone employed a common definition of sport, and showed that soccer met the elements, he would have shown that soccer was a sport even though I asserted it was not. I do not see how 7:50's comment is not analogous.
Sean, that's because you are too stuck on being right to admit a mistake. It's no big deal. Really. Just be an adult about it.
And to 2:07 & 3:0, thanks.
-7:50
I think Sean is about to slap someone.
Maybe Sean could slap Dan for assuming the conclusion?
I am not really stuck on being right, I am just passing time while I read the record of the case I am working on. I just see this as a nice throwback to when I studied Philosophy. :)
I do not even know what there is to be right or wrong about; it all just seems like possible interpretations of very brief statements in a comment thread. I do not argue that either Dan or yourself (7:50) actually think what I am saying, I am just offering alternative characterizations which seem consistent. Isn't that what law is all about?
Sean,
You said, "I do not even know what there is to be right or wrong about."
This was wrong: "Well, the person I quoted argued that slapping was not hitting. So that would make the crux is slapping hitting or not . . . ."
Also, this was wrong: "If he succeeds, then he established that since slapping is hitting, and hitting is wrong by the opponent's own reasoning, then slapping too is wrong."
And, while this might be technically true, the argument was wrong: "I do not see how 7:50's comment is not analogous."
Despite this back-and-forth, I think we can all agree that we still like Braveheart.
"This was wrong: 'Well, the person I quoted argued that slapping was not hitting. So that would make the crux is slapping hitting or not . . . .' "
That person did assert that slapping was not hitting. ". . . it is only a slap, not hitting" So that link seems correct. To argue the crux is still "[w]hether or not it is sometimes okay to hit someone" in light of someone asserting that that is not the question (since slapping is not "hitting or beating") does not seem correct. Perhaps I am also incorrect in saying that the crux is whether or not slapping is hitting, but it seems at least one route to go in the argument.
--
"Also, this was wrong: 'If he succeeds, then he established that since slapping is hitting, and hitting is wrong by the opponent's own reasoning, then slapping too is wrong.' "
Couched in a conditional as it is, it still seems correct. If he succeeded in arguing that slapping met the poster's definition of hitting (whatever it may be) then he would have succeeded in showing slapping was wrong. This still seems possible, unless the definition is actually 'Physical contact (not slapping)' or something similarly ad hoc.
--
"And, while this might be technically true, the argument was wrong: 'I do not see how 7:50's comment is not analogous.' "
No one has yet explained how it is not analogous.
--
Braveheart is still a good movie. And so is Goldfinger, to chose a Sean Connery film to throw into the mix.
Is this a joke?
"If he succeeded in arguing that slapping met the poster's definition of hitting (whatever it may be) then he would have succeeded in showing slapping was wrong."
The argument is not that slapping isn't hitting. You can define slapping as hitting if you want. The argument is that slapping doesn't cause real injury and therefore is sometimes okay.
As a result, showing that slapping is hitting doesn't show that slapping is wrong.
Do you understand now? I'll try explaining another way.
7:50: hitting someone in a way that doesn't cause any real injury is sometimes okay.
You/Dan: hitting someone in a way that doesn't cause any real injury is still hitting therefore it is never okay.
Anon: you're assuming the conclusion. The issue in dispute is whether hitting is sometimes okay. To prove that hitting is never okay (even when it can't cause any real injury) you can't take "hitting is never okay" as your basic premise.
I understand now, just as I understood before. Perhaps it is you who does not understand my point.
7:50 assumes the basic premise that slapping never causes harm or injury to show that slapping is not in all cases immoral. However, underlying the conclusion is a classic assumption that morality is based upon a harm principle such as proposed my John Stuart Mill. As such, 7:50 would have the same logical problem you assert that Dan had. (Point of clarification, I do not have a position on the slapping issue, only on the characterization of Dan's argument)
Now, let me show you how what I said was not a joke. You have provided a possible definition for hitting as used by 7:50: Hitting is contact which can cause real injury. (This is inferred from saying that slapping is not hitting, and slapping is hitting which does not cause real injury. So, the other half of hitting can be the injurious kind) So, instering that definition into my statement, "If he succeeded in arguing that slapping [could cause some sort of real injury] then he would have succeeded in showing slapping was wrong." So the task, then, would be arguing against the basic premise that slapping does not cause harm.
Here is an example of something Dan could say in response: Slapping indeed can cause physical harm (bruising, welts, broken nose is aim is particularly poor). Furthermore, slapping can cause substantial dignitary harm in the form of humiliation. Perhaps in this way slapping could be considered akin to spitting in someone's face, or kicking their cane (a la Respublica v. De Longchamps). Such dignitary harm could also result in psychological harm.
So, filing in the gaps (something which, apparently, you refuse to do) it still seems my statement is correct. If Dan were to show slapping caused harm then by 7:50's own reasoning slapping would be immoral.
[P.S. I am glad my original point, that Dan's argument was not X is illegal therefore X is immoral has been accepted.]
Are you guys fucking kidding me?
No wonder the rest of the country hates us.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF FISHTOPIA
FRESHWATER DIVISION
The Court has read the parties briefs and is of the opinion that both parties need to be be slapped. After a careful review of the applicable precedent, the Court is of the opinion that it is always morally acceptable if you are slapped with a fish, preferably a Trout. The parties remaining arguments concerning other forms of slapping, which raise questions as to this Court's jurisdiction over such claims, are therefore denied as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT
Sean and Anon shall slap each other with trout at dawn. The parties shall meet and confer prior to the slapping as to the location of the slapping and the variety of Trout selected. In the event the parties are not able to reach agreement as to the variety of Trout, then the Trout shall be Rainbow and the location shall be Dean Edley's office. It is this Court's expectation that the parties attempt to resolve further disputes without the need for further intervention by this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is one for the record books. I don't even know what to say, except that I was just kidding before, and I support hitting your spouse in almost any circumstance. Obviously. It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. And of course, by implying that battery law pretty much makes sense from a moral standpoint, and can thus be used as an example of the moral standard, I was lining up behind every conceivable extension of that principle, including locking up every hippie in Berkeley and burning Arthur Miller for being a witch.
I do want to go on record here, however, as saying that I unequivocally oppose fish slaps, or any other kind of battery involving aquatic animals. A real man slaps with cats: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151003
Which circuit do I appeal to from the central district of fishtopia?
Post a Comment
<< Home