As I say in my DEPOSITION------Baltimore police think illegal surveillance and video PORN is fine ---they do it themselves.
The national media places high-profile coverage on an issue like sending Federal funding to TEST RAPE KITS left undone for decades. That is a FALSE FLAG---as that testing was for GENETICS MODELING for violent behavior ---not for actually looking for SEXUAL PREDATORS and criminals.
Maryland and Baltimore may not register on national stats for RAPE and SEXUAL ASSAULTS because we do not have a justice system that prosecutes these crimes.
As well, this JUSTICE DEPARTMENT civil rights leader never mentions the OPEN SECRET of NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG------non-contact sexual assaults and rape are soaring while physical attacks are ignored.
I hear in early morning as I sit and have my breakfast outside------3-4 AM ----NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG at work------------------we have LATINO women in building nearby now getting HIT and made PORN------
STOP DOING THIS TO ME-----I DID NOT SAY YOU COULD DO THIS-----I DO NOT WANT THIS.
We are NOT HEARING about saturated illegal surveillance and PORN being the #1 sexual assault and non-contact RAPE in Baltimore and across the US.
The Post's View
For Baltimore rape victims, added pain
By Editorial Board
August 13, 2016
HEAVEN HELP a woman in Baltimore who reports rape or sexual assault to the city’s police. Odds are, her complaint will be all but ignored and minimally investigated. Or it could be worse: For many who turn to the authorities, the tables are quickly turned. Officers engage in victim-blaming, suggesting the woman invited the assault, or, when a complaint is lodged, they will inflict on the assailant undue hardship.
To every appearance, in policy and practice, the Baltimore police often simply don’t care when women are sexually assaulted and raped.
That’s the stark conclusion drawn from the Justice Department’s report last week on the city’s police force. While the report focuses on the stunning racial disparities in the city’s policing and enforcement, it delivers an equally searing indictment of the department’s overt gender bias.
The police department’s attitude toward female victims of sexual crimes seems to range from a yawn to overt contempt. At a party attended by victims’ advocates and police, a detective in the sex offense unit said that “in homicide there are real victims; all our cases are bull----.” An advocate overheard the remark and reported it to Justice Department investigators.
After rape kits are collected from victims, more than 80 percent of them remain untested, languishing in the Baltimore Police Department’s evidence pound. In 2015, fewer than 1 in 4 rape investigations in the city ended with a suspect’s arrest, a rate less than half the national average. Routinely, the police don’t bother contacting witnesses; they make little effort to garner physical evidence from the scene; they neglect to take DNA samples from suspects, or even locate and question them.
The bias on the force involves not just negligence, as seen in the nonchalance toward rape cases, but unconstitutional and wanton strip-searches of individuals in public. In one instance recounted by Justice investigators, officers detained a woman in a routine traffic stop — she was missing a headlight — and ordered her to remove her clothes. The report describes what happened next: “The female officer then put on purple latex gloves, pulled up the woman’s shirt and searched around her bra. Finding no weapons or contraband around the woman’s chest, the officer then pulled down the woman’s underwear and searched her anal cavity. This search again found no evidence of wrongdoing and the officers released the woman without charges.”
What will it take to effect a change in such a department? Hiring and training are good places to start. Just over a fifth of the force’s 2,600 sworn officers are female; it would help to hire more women. The department also needs internal controls to ensure that rapes and other sexual assaults are aggressively investigated, and it needs to discipline officers who let those cases slide.
Adjusting attitudes will be a titanic task in an agency that’s become accustomed to a lack of accountability verging on impunity. Clear procedures and guidance must come from the top. It’s far from certain that the force’s current leadership is up to the task.
MY CASE of sexual assault and non-contact RAPE by NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal surveillance and 25/7 streaming PORN------with lawsuits to be filed for criminal and civil damages to ME will extend to class action lawsuits filed on behalf of what is called TECHNOLOGY FACILITATED SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND ABUSE-----TFSV is one classification of sexual crimes committed by NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG.
This morning as I walked to bus stop I keep my eyes open for whom NOSY NEIGHBORS on my block are HITTING now-----as they are not seeing MY STUFF----they are looking for others to HIT-----I identified a LATINO woman a few weeks ago I feel sure is the person I hear in the early morning as NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG go from being MONSTERS IN THE CLOSET-----silently stalking these victims while filming them and sending these videos to DARK WEB PORN sites. Besides this one LATINO woman I see two more LATINO women coming out of apartment looking very scared ---cowering as they leave that apartment.
SCARING, MAKING FEARFUL, INTIMIDATING, HUMILIATING-----ALL THAT PSYCHO-SEXUAL TORTURE I WENT THROUGH FROM JANUARY UNTIL NOW.
Our LATINO immigrants are fleeing violence, brutality, persecution by violent gangs IN LATIN AMERICAN NATIONS only to end up in BALTIMORE where they are subjected to VIOLENCE, BRUTALITY, PERSECUTION, ENSLAVEMENT-----to include SEXUAL ASSAULT.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG SAY IN FEEDBACK---------THE LATINO WOMAN THINKS SHE-----THAT IS ME----IS THE ONE WATCHING HER---WE ARE TELLING HER TO FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST HER----THAT IS ME.
Trauma Violence Abuse.
2018 Apr;19(2):195-208. doi: 10.1177/1524838016650189. Epub 2016 Jun 16.
Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence: A Literature Review of Empirical Research.
Henry N1, Powell A2.Author information
Technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV) refers to a range of behaviors where digital technologies are used to facilitate both virtual and face-to-face sexually based harms. Such behaviors include online sexual harassment, gender- and sexuality-based harassment, cyberstalking, image-based sexual exploitation, and the use of a carriage service to coerce a victim into an unwanted sexual act. This article reviews the current state of knowledge on these different dimensions, drawing on existing empirical studies. While there is a growing body of research into technology-facilitated harms perpetrated against children and adolescents, there is a dearth of qualitative and quantitative research on TFSV against adults. Moreover, few of the existing studies provide reliable data on the nature, scope, and impacts of TFSV. Preliminary studies, however, indicate that some harms, much like sexual violence more broadly, may be predominantly gender-, sexuality-, and age-based, with young women being overrepresented as victims in some categories. This review collects the empirical evidence to date regarding the prevalence and gender-based nature of TFSV against adults and discusses the implications for policy and programs, as well as suggestions for future research.
I do not want this to be labelled only an sexual assault against WOMEN------because that is not the case. While WOMEN are targeted a majority of times ----MEN AND CHILDREN are as lucrative as PORN on DARK WEB PORN SITES.
While for example the LATINO women I see coming from apartments living near me may be alone----they often have COUPLES----and COUPLES WITH CHILDREN in this same building all of which are being ILLEGALLY SURVEILLED AND MADE PORN.
This is CHILD PORN AND RAPE---
This is MALE PORN and sexual assault
This is WOMEN PORN and sexual assault.
Indeed, women tend to report these sexual assaults while men HIDE this fact and often use the exposure against his PARTNER.
'Lifetime TFSV victimization for men and women was not significantly different, though women were more likely to report sexual harassment victimization and men were more likely to report victimization through the distribution of non-consensual images, as well as gender and/or sexuality-based harassment'.
The men are getting angry because they cannot protect their own WOMEN---WIVES and children from these violent sexual assaults by NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG illegal PORN CARTEL.
THIS IS ONE LEGAL DEFINITION THAT COURTS RECOGNIZE FOR THESE CRIMES---I WILL BE USING THESE LEGAL DEFINITIONS IN MY LAWSUITS.
NOSY NEIGHBORS are telling this latest victim that I am the one surveilling her and she should file a complaint against ME.
Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence Victimization
Article in Journal of Interpersonal Violence · October 2016
Online forms of sexual harassment and abuse as experienced by adults represent an emerging yet under-researched set of behaviors, such that very few studies have sought to estimate the extent of the problem. This article presents the results of an online survey of 2,956 Australian adult (aged 18 to 54 years) experiences of technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV) victimization. The prevalence of TFSV was analyzed in relation to a 21-item scale developed in accordance with prior conceptual research identifying multiple dimensions of TFSV including digital sexual harassment, image-based sexual abuse, sexual aggression and/or coercion, and, gender and/or sexuality-based harassment (including virtual sexual violence). Results revealed significant differences in lifetime TFSV victimization for younger (18-24) and non-heterosexual identifying adults. Lifetime TFSV victimization for men and women was not significantly different, though women were more likely to report sexual harassment victimization and men were more likely to report victimization through the distribution of non-consensual images, as well as gender and/or sexuality-based harassment. The authors conclude that although women and men report experiencing similar overall prevalence of TFSV victimization, the nature and impacts of those experiences differ in particular gendered ways that reflect broader patterns in both gender relations and “offline” sexual harassment.
'(f) virtual rape (Henry & Powell, 2014a)'.
NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG like to say------this isn't sexual assault---this is not RAPE----but of course it is. Here we have a woman writing about this not mentioning that NOSY NEIGHBORS often are WOMEN------and these women recruited to be NOSY NEIGHBORS are often VICTIMS of HITTING.
Children of families who have been HIT-----are known to grow up remaining VICTIMS-----and/or becoming the one ASSAULTING others.
These studies look more at the DAMAGE /HARM done by this process. It uses the same terms NOSY NEIGHBORS like to use-------
SHE IS SHAMED AND HUMILIATED----SHE SHOULD NOT BE SEEN IN PUBLIC-----SHE IS RUINED.
Of course many people who are HIT may feel that way----I personally DO NOT. As these studies show---------NOSY NEIGHBORS are SEXUAL PREDATORS filled with SHAME AND HUMILIATION and fear that people in the community will find out THEY are the one's committing these SEXUAL ASSAULT CRIMES.
While NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG like to call all this WATCHING----it is TECHNOLOGY FACILITATED SEXUAL VIOLENCE.
This article is very long and boring but please glance through------it addresses many legal terms for cyber sexual assault---while this focuses upon women and assault------men and children are as frequently targeted.
Embodied Harms: Gender, Shame, and Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence
Nicola Henry, Anastasia Powell
First Published March 31, 2015 Research Article
Criminality in cyberspace has been the subject of much debate since the 1990s, yet comparatively little attention has been paid to technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment (TFSV). The aim of this article is to explore the ways in which retraditionalized gender hierarchies and inequalities are manifested in online contexts, and to conceptualize the cause and effects of TFSV as “embodied harms.” We argue that problematic mind/body and online/off-line dualisms result in a failure to grasp the unique nature of embodied harms, precluding an adequate understanding and theorization of TFSV.
In mid-2006, a group of teenage boys in the Australian town of Werribee filmed the sexual assault of a teenage girl. The “Werribee DVD,” as it became known in the media, was initially sold in suburban Melbourne schools for $5 and later on Internet sites for up to $60 AUD under the name “C***: The Movie,” with excerpts made freely available on YouTube. It shows the boys urinating on the girl, setting her hair on fire, throwing her clothes into a river, and forcing her to participate in sex acts. Eight of the youths were charged with assault, manufacturing child pornography, and procuring sexual penetration by intimidation in the Melbourne Children’s Court in 2007. At the trial and sentencing of the young men responsible, the victim said she was terrified she would be recognized in public after the distribution of the DVD and that her life had been changed forever (Medew, 2007).1 This example vividly illustrates the unprecedented power of new technologies in achieving new forms of social shaming—beyond geographic borders, at vast speeds, to diverse audiences, and often with unparalleled impunity.
The use of new technologies for the facilitation of sexual violence and harassment is a growing phenomenon. Although there is a large body of literature on various forms of criminality in cyberspace, such as cyberbullying, cyber-deception, cyber-pornography, and cyber-violence (including hate speech, cyberstalking, and inciting physical violence), comparatively little attention has been paid to what we call “technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment” (TFSV). We use this term to describe collectively the range of criminal, civil, and otherwise harmful sexually aggressive behaviors perpetrated against women with the aid or use of new technologies. As such, we categorize TFSV according to six different forms: (a) the unauthorized creation and distribution of sexual images (including non-consensual sexting or “revenge porn”), (b) the creation and distribution (actual or threatened) of sexual assault images, (c) the use of a carriage service to procure a sexual assault, (d) online sexual harassment and cyberstalking, (e) gender-based hate speech, and (f) virtual rape (Henry & Powell, 2014a).
It is important to note that gender-based TFSV against males, including online harassment and cyberbullying, “trolling,” “flaming,” and the sharing of images without consent, is an equally significant and growing problem. Our article, however, specifically focuses on TFSV against adult women. Although there are few empirical prevalence studies internationally and the precise nature and extent of TFSV remains unclear, research suggests that women are disproportionately the targets of harassment and hate speech in cyberspace (Barak, 2005; Citron, 2010; Finn & Banach, 2000; Herring, Job-Sluder, Scheckler, & Barab, 2002; Morahan-Martin, 2000). For example, in a survey of more than 9,000 German Internet users aged 10 to 50 years, women were significantly more likely than men to have been victims of online sexual harassment, cyberstalking, and insulting comments (Staude-Müller, Hansen, & Voss, 2012). One non-governmental organization, Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA), reported that in 2011, 74% of victims who made a complaint to the organization were women, although the proportion of harassers according to gender was far less significant (e.g., 40% estimated male harassers, 34% female).
The harms associated with TFSV can be considered on a continuum of violence against women, which ranges from “choice to pressure to coercion to force” (Kelly, 1987, p. 54). Violence can be defined as physical, emotional, symbolic, and structural. As such, we argue that analyzing TFSV as a collective phenomenon helps to make sense of the perpetration and impact of these harms within a spectrum of violence, even though some instances are clearly serious criminal offenses (e.g., rape) or unlawful civil harms in some jurisdictions (e.g., sexual harassment), whereas others are neither unlawful nor criminal, depending on jurisdiction (e.g., most forms of gender-based hate speech or virtual rape).
The aim of this article is not to fixate on a normative framework for either civil or criminal liability, but rather to explore the conceptualization of the embodied harm perpetuated by various forms of technosocial violence—as a qualitatively gendered phenomenon. The article is divided into three main sections. The first section provides an overview of sociological and feminist thinking on technology and gender. We explore debates about whether technology represents a new democratic frontier of transcendence, free from the constraints of the gendered strictures of everyday life, or whether technology provides another mechanism for the consolidation of traditional gender roles and norms. In the second section of the article, we explore what makes online criminality distinct from off-line criminality, with a focus on the key concept of “embodied harm.”
In the final section, we examine both the motives for, and consequences of, online sexual victimization, drawing on phenomenological theories of intersubjectivity, embodiment, and masculinity to explore how injury and shame are perpetrated, experienced, performed, and defined. We argue that there is a need to understand the harms of TFSV as unique: first, to examine the complex ways in which disinhibition, anonymity, complicity, and impunity operate to diffuse responsibility, blame victims, and deindividualize the problem; and second, to deconstruct the problematic dualism between the body and the mind and the tendency in law, policy, and scholarly contexts to obfuscate the extent to which social and intrapsychical harms are in fact embodied, real, and tangible. We end the article by considering Nancy Fraser’s (2008) concept of “misrecognition” (social status subordination) as a useful framework for understanding the unique psycho-social harms of TFSV and the denial of “technological citizenship” (Frankenfeld, 1992).
Although cyber criminality has attracted much attention within criminological studies (Cornelius & Hermann, 2011; Grabosky, 2001; Jewkes & Yar, 2010; Wall, 2001, 2007; Williams, 2006; Yar, 2005), there remains a scarcity of empirical and theoretical work exploring the digital harms that women in particular experience. Some work has been done on online sexual harassment and solicitation (Barak, 2005; Citron, 2009; Finn & Banach, 2000; Morahan-Martin, 2000; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2008), non-consensual sexting and “revenge porn” (Citron & Franks, 2014; Henry & Powell, 2014b; Humbach, 2010; Parker, 2009), gender-based hate speech (Citron, 2010; Guichard, 2009; Lee & Leets, 2002; Nussbaum, 2010), and virtual rape—where a person’s avatar (or digital representation of themselves) is subjected to simulated sexual violence by other avatars, most recently in the three-dimensional virtual world of Second Life (Boyd, 2009; Dibbell, 1998).
However, to date there are very few scholars who examine the ways in which new technologies facilitate sexual violence and harassment against adult women. Nor are there any studies that document the prevalence of these harms collectively. This is surprising in light of various high-profile cases that have emerged in recent years, particularly in relation to non-consensual sexting and virtual rape, and the significant legislative and policy challenges that these behaviors present.
As a result of the gender blindness within studies of virtual or cyber criminality, the conceptualization of technology-mediated “harm” against women remains significantly underdeveloped. Moreover, the status of so-called “virtual” reality is itself subject to extensive debate (see Brown, 2006; Youngs, 2005). Margaret Morse, for example, calls virtual environments “liminal spaces, sacred places of social and personal transformation . . . neither imaginary nor real, animate but neither living nor dead, a subjective realm of externalized imagination where events happen in effect but not actually” (cited in Jarenski, 2007, p. 136).
Michael Benedikt (1992) similarly calls cyberspace a
globally networked, computer-sustained, computer-accessed, and computer-generated, multidimensional, artificial, or “virtual” reality . . . [where] seen or heard objects are neither physical nor, necessarily representations of physical objects but are, rather in form, character and action, made up of data, of pure information. (p. 122)
Some scholars suggest that virtual harms are not comparable with “real-world” harms (MacKinnon, 1997; Williams, 2006). For instance, the harm of sexual violence is “deeply tied to [the physical] flesh” (Huff, Johnson, & Miller, 2003, p. 14).
Conversely, Gillian Youngs (2005) argues that “we now need to think in sociospatial as much as geospatial terms,” where sociospatial refers to the “technologically mediated spaces we can access, work and play in, build relationships and communities in, pursue learning, etc.” (p. 20). The rapid expansion of the use of the Internet and other communication technologies have resulted in a significant shift, where social interactions are not just mediated by technology but increasingly dependent on it (Youngs, 2005). As such, our communications and social interactions in sociospatial or technosocial worlds (Brown, 2006) may come to be equally important, or more important, than the geospatial context (Youngs, 2005).
Conventional legal conceptualizations of criminality face real challenges in confronting digital or technosocial harms. Sheila Brown (2006) notes that “the criminal code enshrines the notion of the protection of the body from malicious harm and violation . . . embodied individuals have been required in order to establish guilt, in order to punish . . .” (p. 231). The pressing issue is whether harm has to be enacted on the body of a subject to be thought of as harm. Or, as Brown puts it, “How embodied does ‘real’ victimisation have to be?” (p. 232). Harms in the so-called “virtual” world can have real effects, both bodily and psychical, and are not tangential, but increasingly central, to how individuals experience and live their everyday lives. The harms experienced by women in the sociospatial world may have at least as much impact on a person as traditional harms occurring against the physical body. As Brown states, “. . . endlessly circulating, shifting, pixels affect real lives . . . real humiliations and human pains are generated; and real relations of (patriarchal) power and exploitation are reproduced and reinforced” (p. 233, emphasis in original).
This is not necessarily to suggest that there should be a directly translatable law against so-called “real-life” sexual violence across to its virtual equivalents (e.g., virtual rape). Instead, we would argue that digital harms against women need to be taken seriously as distinct harms, though their nature, extent, and prevalence require further theorizing and investigation to formulate workable and appropriate legal or other remedies. Such harms must also be thought of in terms of their potentiality. In other words, we do not mean to suggest the universalization of women’s experience of TFSV. Rather, our understanding of “embodied harm” is informed by feminist theories of the embodied subject: the real, sensory, physical, psychical, exterior, and interior lived experiences.
Harm may also be individualized or collectivized, as we claim later in the article.
It is also important to note that when digital harms are directly related to physical violence, the law can and has taken action. This is evident in cases where rape images have been distributed (such as the “Werribee DVD” case referred to earlier in the article) and the use of technologies to arrange a physical rape (see, for example, Correll, 2010; Cox, 2012). Although to be clear, the harm that is punished in these cases is the crime that occurred against the physical body of the victim and there is no conceptualization or acknowledgment that any other or additional harm occurred.6 In fact, there are very few examples of virtual/sexual harms that take place in the technosocial world that are currently taken seriously as criminal harms. An exception to this is the sexual solicitation and exploitation of children, or the bullying and harassment of children online. For instance, both Australian and U.S. law currently ban the production, possession, and distribution of simulated child pornography or “sexual exploitation material” depicting a child or child-like character as analogous to sexual exploitation of an actual child (Warren & Palmer, 2010). It is likewise an offense to solicit or attempt to procure a child or young person for sex, including via online and communication technologies. More recently, in 2011, in response to public concerns over bullying in workplaces, schools, and online, the State of Victoria in Australia reformed its stalking provisions to enable criminalization of repeated bullying behaviors, an offense that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
By contrast, “sexting” provides a useful example of the recent application, and simultaneous inadequacy, of the criminal law to respond to issues raised by the distribution and appropriation of unauthorized sexual images. Sexting (or more commonly, taking a “selfie” or “nOOdz”) refers to the sending of sexual images via mobile phones, online video chat (such as Skype), picture and video sharing sites (such as YouTube, Flickr, and Instagram), and social networking sites (such as Facebook). In recent times, the attention paid to non-consensual sexting has been directed toward concerns over girls’ and young women’s participation in sexting, which is taken to simultaneously signal their sexual victimization and complicity in the production of child pornography. Internationally, for example, underage sexting has been addressed through existing child pornography offenses with experts increasingly concerned that this is rarely an appropriate way to respond to the issue (see, for example, Humbach, 2010; Parker, 2009). Jurisdictions in countries such as England, the United States, and Australia have proposed or have introduced “revenge porn” or sexting legislation in an effort to criminalize adult behaviors and/or provide defenses for children to child pornography offenses, yet there remains significant debate about how this is best achieved (Henry & Powell, 2014b).The case of sexting and other examples of the unauthorized or non-consensual distribution of sexual images further highlight the problem created when legal, policy, and institutional responses have not kept pace with the development of new technologies, and where “old” responses to “new” behaviors may themselves result in further harm to the individuals involved (such as teenage victims of distributed sexting images being punished alongside the person/s who shared their original image). In addition to this “institutionalized harm,” it is important to consider the harm to the victim.
The further distribution of the original image is itself a direct violation of an individual’s sexual autonomy, with the effect of humiliating, intimidating, or otherwise harassing the victim (see Powell, 2009, 2010a, 2010b).
This has implications, whether the victim is a girl, teenager, or adult woman. Yet, the harm experienced by adult women is not adequately recognized as a legitimate criminal or civil harm in many jurisdictions. Thus, current legal frameworks that position the harm of sexting as one of child sexual exploitation or child pornography arguably leave an enormous gap in terms of responding to the violation of sexual autonomy that the unauthorized distribution of a sexual image inflicts on adult and young women alike (Henry & Powell, 2014b).
In summary, the problem of TFSV is often framed as an age-specific issue of vulnerability, linked to a moral panic over youth sexuality, namely, that young people should be protected from online sexual predators and cyberbullies, and from themselves. However, such conceptualizations fail to account for the newly emerging patterns of TFSV and tend to divert attention from the gendered nature of these harms.
Framing the Real Harms of Digital Abuse
In 2009, a Royal Australian Navy sailor used his mobile phone to film himself raping a fellow trainee. The sailor proceeded to share the video with three male peers at the base, and was later found guilty of two counts of rape. The distribution of sexual assault images, as this example demonstrates, shows how advances in technology enable the continuation of harm against sexual assault victims well beyond the original crime. It also reveals the extent to which multiple offenders are complicit in a wide range of sexually aggressive behaviors over and above the “physical” act, including filming, watching, and distributing. In a different but related example, two Australian Defence Force Academy cadets were charged in 2011 with “using a carriage service to cause offence” and “committing an act of indecency,” when one of them covertly filmed consensual sex with a woman and the other set up live footage in another room filled with several other male cadets. The “Defence Skype Scandal,” as it later became known, resulted in an independent public inquiry and was the focus of much political, media, and public attention. A report by the Australian Human Rights Commission (2012) revealed that this was not an isolated incident, and other women in the Australian Defence Force likewise reported having had various sex acts recorded without their consent. While there was public criticism about the way the incident was handled (including subjecting the victim to disciplinary matters based on separate, unrelated allegations of misconduct), what this example shows is the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks to address TFSV in a way that adequately captures the multiple harms against victims.
Although covert filming of sex acts without consent is by no means a new phenomenon, new communication technologies, such as mobile phones, social networking sites, and software applications, enable the distribution of sexual images and footage to be shared across vast geographical spaces. As such, technology creates a unique medium for social shaming. This need not imply that the harm of one incident is equal to that of the other, but rather the original harm of violation, harassment, or hate speech is exacerbated by the unbounded nature of potential and perpetual public shame and humiliation. TFSV thus raises serious questions about not only how to respond adequately to these harms but also how to frame and understand them.
It is our contention that the naming of the gendered character of these harms and taking seriously the role of the technosocial “lived experience”—namely that “harm” can no longer be thought of only in relation to the physical or biological body—are crucial first steps to theorizing TFSV. We now turn to further analysis of the nature of these harms through the key concept of ressentiment in an effort to understand how harm, injury, and shame might be perpetrated, experienced, performed, and, finally, defined.
Ressentiment and the Body
Although many view the virtual world as a release from the gendered constraints of the physical off-line world, it would be erroneous to conclude that the corporeal being is entirely absent in cyberspace. Indeed, TFSV might be understood as gendered harms explicitly or implicitly fixated on the objectification of the “feminine body.” In other words, the female body, both real and imagined, is inscribed, marked and “colonized” (Grosz, 1994, p. ix). Martha Nussbaum (2010) argues that this objectification “always involves conferring on the object a spoiled, or stigmatized, identity, a compromised status” (p. 68). She adds,
To objectify is to treat as a mere thing, a tool of the purposes of the objectifier, an entity whose subjective feelings need not be taken into account, or whose feelings, like her autonomy, may be wilfully violated, Given that the objectified is a human being, objectification confers a spoiled, or stigmatized, identity, and is thus a species of shaming. (Nussbaum, 2010, p. 73)
Nussbaum (2010) claims that misogynist Internet objectification is deeply connected to “shame punishment” and uses Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of ressentiment and contemporary norms of masculinity to explain the malice underlying Internet gossip sites. Much of the gender-based hate speech on the Internet, she argues, is done instrumentally to satisfy the needs of the objectifier. This objectification is frequently contingent on the reduction and debasement of the “object” to bodily parts and physical appearance. Ressentiment, Nussbaum explains, “is a reactive emotion inspired by the feeling of weakness . . . the goal of ressentiment is to bring those people down and get power over them” (p. 76). Technology embodies and magnifies power itself; the power to “circulate information [or text] at little to no cost, to every corner of the globe” (Nussbaum, 2010, p. 79). Anonymity and complicity provide the requisite protection for this somewhat irrepressible power, with hegemonic forms of masculinity being “strongly associated with technical prowess and power” (Wajcman, 2010, p. 145). Although bodies may be the “centers of perspective, insight, reflection, desire, agency” (Grosz, 1994, p. xi), the feminine body, constructed as aberrant sexual difference, becomes the conduit for gratification and objectification in both geospatial and sociospatial worlds. This runs contrary to Haraway’s (1987) optimism that cyborgs can help us to transcend the real world’s rigidity of physical embodiment. What happens, for example, when the cyborg is violated?
Gender-based hate speech on the Internet is a useful example to emphasize the centrality of the figure of the female body in TFSV, as well as the complexities associated with framing these harms. Danielle Citron (2010) argues that hate speech on the Internet is more than isolated or random incidents of cyberbullying. Instead, Citron states, anonymous mobs systematically and disproportionately target women as the object of their hate, particularly lesbians and/or “women of color.” The harm of online abuse, on the surface, may appear “disembodied,” but in actual fact, the effects can be both psychical and physical.
Several other pertinent examples demonstrate the scope of the problem, including the use of Facebook groups to promote rape-supportive attitudes, the use of online discussion forums to rate how “rape-able” female students are, the doctoring of photographs to create sexually explicit and degrading images, threats of sexual violence (including publicly posting the names and addresses of women who “deserve to be raped”), and the posting of sexually based comments about female students. For example, a U.S. website called AutoAdmit (also known as Xoxohth) hosts unmoderated discussion boards where degrading comments about named female law students are regularly posted. Despite a series of ongoing lawsuits against anonymous defendants in one case, the site continues to host offensive and degrading gender-hate speech. An excerpt from a recent post (from June 22, 2012) titled “My gorgeous Russian girl” is illustrative here:
she is from murmansk, born in 1989, writing her finals next week, redhead, perfect body. and she does not swear or smoke . . . i bet if i gave her some sedatives i could f*** her like 12 times in 1 night [sic].
In another posting, titled “How Much Do Titties Make Up for Face?” (from June 21, 2012), there are links to a photograph of some women on a bus. One of the women in the photograph is named and the “posters” in this particular thread engage in evaluations of the named woman’s body weight, appearance, and the size of her breasts.
Some TFSV acts constitute serious crimes (e.g., threats of violence) or can be “remedied” under tort or anti-discrimination legislation (e.g., “defamation,” “sex discrimination,” or “sexual harassment”). However, some acts fall through the legislative cracks. Although some jurisdictions have anti-vilification legislation on the grounds of race, religion, sexuality, and “gender identity,” few jurisdictions specifically make sex- or gender-based vilification (e.g., public hate speech on the ground of sex that is likely to offend) unlawful. The challenges posed by user anonymity and cross-jurisdictional borders make detection and punishment increasingly elusive. Legal frameworks are simply ill-equipped to deal with the sorts of harms perpetrated by these behaviors. In other words, the question of harm—virtual, embodied, or both—is not adequately captured by traditional criminal and civil justice responses.
It is also crucial to view the harms of TFSV in both collectivist and individualistic terms. For example, the group mentality of these various behaviors can consolidate and radicalize sexist, racist, and homophobic views, and even incite physical violence in the so-called “off-line” world.
Group dynamics also work to diffuse moral or legal responsibility for group members, displace accountability, provide greater anonymity, and dehumanize and blame victims in ways never before imagined. Recent research indicates that both the absence of eye contact and unidentifiability (nondisclosure of potentially identifying personal information) in many online interactions play a major role in facilitating aggressive online behaviors (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012).
The relationship between masculinity (or masculinities) and technology has also been under-researched (Lohan & Faulkner, 2004), yet if both gender and technology are socially constructed and socially shaped, then it is crucial to examine the construction of masculinities in the gendered contours of the technosocial world. For example, in an extension of theories on the role of male peer support in facilitating violence against women, Walter DeKeseredy and Patrik Olsson (2011) argue that new technologies allow men not only to engage in online victimization of women but also to create and join networks based on a collective subculture of male dominance, sexism, and “pro-abuse” attitudes toward women in which women are presented as “objects to be conquered and consumed” (p. 40). The pro-abuse groups mentioned by DeKeseredy and Olsson mirror the “pro-rape” groups and content that have featured on social networking sites such as Facebook and on the aforementioned AutoAdmit discussion board. Such groups arguably facilitate the construction of particular masculine identities based on collective participation in the objectification of women, sexism, misogyny, and permissive attitudes toward non-consensual sex. There is a need to further extend concepts such as male peer support to the collective forms of masculinity and male identities that are also being constructed in opposition to violence against women in online spaces.
The group nature of online gender-hate speech and the shared spaces in which women’s humiliation can be achieved, observed, and enjoyed may have harmful effects on victims. In other words, psychological harm is also physical and social harm, embodied and “real.” This conception of harm as lived and social can help to situate the centrality of the body in the perpetration of online abuse, despite assumptions to the contrary regarding the absence or suspension of the physical body in cyberspace.
“Virtual rape” provides a useful example for thinking through the problematic dualism of mind/body, and the effects that online sexual victimization may have. For example, the object of a Japanese anime-style game, “RapeLay,” is for the player to stalk and rape a fictional mother and her two daughters. Originally, this game did not breach Japanese laws and, even when a later ban was imposed, as with other banned content on the web, downloads are almost impossible to regulate.
With the absence of the physical element of penetration needed in criminal law, most critics have argued that there is no “real” rape in such cases, and no identifiable, singular “victim” as such. However, many acknowledge that while online victimization does not automatically result in emotional stress, there are real harms, physical and emotional, resulting from online victimization and/or representations of virtual violence (see, for example, Staude-Müller et al., 2012). Moreover, as we explore below, harm may also be inflicted on a social group and on individuals who form part of that group.
The difficulties or impossibilities of law to provide remedies to acts of sexual harassment, sex discrimination, sexual assault, gender-based vilification, and domestic violence, and to significantly overcome structural, systematic, and pervasive forms of sexism, have been the subject of much feminist debate over the decades. Some feminists, for example, have argued that law and culture have failed to fully appreciate the harm that this gender-based violence enacts. Although much progress has been made in terms of recognizing the psychological and social harm of sexual violence and harassment both inside and outside of law, this has not resulted in substantive shifts in cultural and legal conceptualizations of harm.
TFSV is a significant problem of global proportions but is not well understood. More empirical research is needed on the nature, scope, and impact of TFSV. In particular, a thorough investigation is required of the lived experiences of victims, perpetrators, and bystanders in terms of their engagement with, and perceptions of, emerging technologies and the harms of TFSV. Empirical research will provide the foundations from which policy and legislative initiatives for prevention, punishment, and remedy might be developed. Currently, the law is ill-equipped to deal with these new harms due to the ad hoc and fragmented nature of criminal and civil law; the failure of law to keep pace with technological change; the individualistic nature of criminal, tort, and anti-discrimination legislation and remedies; the exclusion of TFSV in cybercrime legislation; and the failure of law to address the systemic nature of gender violence and inequality. However, resorting to a normative framework of law may not provide a satisfactory solution to the problem of TFSV. The first step, at least, is to overcome a general lack of understanding surrounding how new technologies operate, how they are gendered, how they are used, and what their impacts are, against the backdrop of insurmountable challenges of transnational legal regulation within an ever-changing and increasingly complex “technological polity” (Frankenfeld, 1992, p. 459).
Current conceptualizations of harm within legal, policy, and other contexts fail (as they have done in the past) to adequately frame or name the intrapsychical and embodied harms of TFSV. Due to the complexity that ICTs present for regulation and law enforcement (e.g., often operating cross-jurisdictionally), there is a need to consider what roles prevention and other policy frameworks might play to address these issues beyond legislation alone. Part of the problem, we have maintained, is that there is a false dichotomy between “real” and “virtual” harms, which is increasingly problematic given the ways in which the technosocial world has become deeply embedded in both contemporary subjectivity and social interaction. Ultimately, legislative and cultural change can be achieved through greater attention and detail to the unique harms experienced by victims. This is why it is crucial to view these not simply as old crimes, but as unique harms that require innovative responses across the micro- (individual), meso- (organizational), and macro- (societal) levels.
MY CASE of NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG can be also categorized as SEXUAL STALKING. This crime has a long history of COURT PRECEDENCE in convicts and sentencing.
There is nothing more obvious as STALKING----then having NOSY NEIGHBOR following you around the city with the ability to hack into public surveillance wherever you are----whether outside or inside a place of business.
THIS IS CYBER-SEXUAL STALKING because NOSY NEIGHBORS make clear to anyone around that I am being HIT----meaning SEXUALLY ASSAULTED.
Below we see one state which being right wing and conservative has already passed laws -----so, most states have these STALKING LAWS.
When victims of NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG come together for CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS--------please consider this--------REVENGE PORN which is what I am facing with POLITICAL MACHINES tied to black market illegal streaming PORN used against political opponents and activists ---is not the only category of SEXUAL ASSAULT CRIME------
PLEASE MAKE THESE CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS BROADLY WRITTEN------WE WANT TO HAVE PORN AS ONE CATEGORY BUT THERE ARE MANY CRIMES BEING COMMITTED.
The 2019 Florida Statutes
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE
View Entire Chapter
784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.--
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means:
1. To engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person; or
2. To access, or attempt to access, the online accounts or Internet-connected home electronic systems of another person without that person’s permission,causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.
(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).
(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.
(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.
History.--s. 1, ch. 92-208; s. 29, ch. 94-134; s. 29, ch. 94-135; s. 2, ch. 97-27; s. 23, ch. 2002-55; s. 1, ch. 2003-23; s. 3, ch. 2004-17; s. 3, ch. 2004-256; s. 17, ch. 2008-172; s. 2, ch. 2012-153; s. 31, ch. 2019-167.
The definition of CYBER-SEXUAL ASSAULTS include these CHAT ROOMS because these are networks of PORN-------with memberships viewing and getting to comment with fellow members about the victims of these violent sexual attacks.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the Blackbear album, see Cybersex (album).
Cybersex, also called computer sex, Internet sex, netsex and, colloquially, cyber or cybering, is a virtual sex encounter in which two or more people connected remotely via computer network send each other sexually explicit messages describing a sexual experience'.
Here in Baltimore, what my case of NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG include especially during psycho-sexual torture----is a group of people tied to a CHAT ROOM-----SEX CHAT ROOM ----that talk and discuss what they are seeing while SILENT as MONSTERS IN THE CLOSET------but, when the victim is 'used up' and needs to be forced out of apartment/house-----this SEX CHAT ROOM membership share in voicing this psycho-sexual torture. Not every member of these SEX CHAT ROOMS want to be that voice of psycho-sexual torture but like to view the illegal streaming PORN-----
LISTENING TO THE VERBAL TORTURE------LOOKING AT THE PORN-----WHILE SOME MEMBERS DO THE VOICING OF 'RUINING' THAT VICTIM.
When pulling together these SEXUAL ASSAULT LAWSUITS------be familiar with all these categories of crime.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the Blackbear album, see Cybersex (album).
Cybersex, also called computer sex, Internet sex, netsex and, colloquially, cyber or cybering, is a virtual sex encounter in which two or more people connected remotely via computer network send each other sexually explicit messages describing a sexual experience. In one form, this fantasy sex is accomplished by the participants describing their actions and responding to their chat partners in a mostly written form designed to stimulate their own sexual feelings and fantasies. Cybersex often includes real life masturbation. Environments in which cybersex takes place are not necessarily exclusively devoted to that subject, and participants in any Internet chat may suddenly receive a message of invitation). The quality of a cybersex encounter typically depends upon the participants' abilities to evoke a vivid, visceral mental picture in the minds of their partners. Imagination and suspension of disbelief are also critically important. Cybersex can occur either within the context of existing or intimate relationships, e.g. among lovers who are geographically separated, or among individuals who have no prior knowledge of one another and meet in virtual spaces or cyberspaces and may even remain anonymous to one another. In some contexts cybersex is enhanced by the use of a webcam to transmit real-time video of the partners.
I do not think everyone in our US military is involved in these global SEX TRADE black market structures---whether human sex trade trafficing---or whether my case of NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG-----but, the connection with military and all this SURVEILLANCE STRUCTURE is clear. Now, NOSY NEIGHBORS AND THE GANG may be FORMER MILITARY who overseas were trained to use PSYCHO-SEXUAL TORTURE while in war zones or military prisons. This is what I think is behind the HOSTING SERVER NOSY NEIGHBOR LEVEL criminal cartel.
WE ONLY HIT 'THEM' NOT 'US'.
We often discuss what that means. US AND THEM can mean anything as we often show. US AND THEM could mean people in military vs civilian for example-----we think 'US' AND 'THEM' simply mean global banking 5% freemason/Greek players/pols who have been recruited for these ROBBER BARON sacking and looting----now MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD development in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
'recounts another serious sexual assault that, like the rape described above, was covered by the Colombian press, both in print and on TV, but ignored in the United States: in 2004, “53 underage girls were sexually abused by mercenaries, who filmed and sold the tapes as pornographic material.” '
Imagine how our 99% of LATINO citizens trying to escape all these continuous wars in their nations feel as they come to US and face these same SEX ABUSE conditions.
Back in January when NOSY NEIGHBORS let know I was being illegally surveilled---I first thought about ABU GHRAIB-----STANFORD TOTAL PRISON MODEL and looked to MILITARY TRIBUNAL court cases of just this------
Our LATINO 99% of citizens have really been brutalized with continuous wars thanks to global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS ----now coming to US SANCTUARY CITY/STATES treating these immigrants to BEING USED ----BEING MAKE PORN---RUINED.
What the media don’t cover when Colombian women are raped by members of the US military.
By Greg GrandinTwitterApril 7, 2015
When Colombian men rape Colombian women, it is news. When US soldiers and private defense contractors are the rapists, not so much. Last week, FAIR noticed that not one major media organization in the United States has covered the charge, reported in Colombia (and online in English by the invaluable Medellín-based >Colombia Reports), “that US military soldiers and contractors had sexually abused at least fifty-four children in Colombia between 2003 and 2007 and, in all cases, the rapists were never punished–either in Colombia or stateside–due to American military personnel being immune from prosecution under diplomatic immunity agreements between the two countries.” Nor, as far as I can tell, have any of the State Department’s allied human rights groups made mention of the allegations.
The media silence goes hand in hand with the official immunity granted not just to US diplomats, but soldiers and employees of shadowy private security firms hired by Washington to carry out much of Plan Colombia. One of the rapes occurred in 2007 and was reported in the Colombian press. It was allegedly committed by Army sergeant Michael J. Coen and an employee of a private security contractor, César Ruiz. The victim was a 12-year-old girl. “They abducted her, they drugged her, they took her to the air base near the town of Melgar and raped her, they took videos of her,” the victim’s mother told reporters. Then they drove her into town and pushed her out of their car in front of a church. The crime was well covered in Colombia, but a search of Proquest news turned up only one item in English the United States, a translation of a piece that was part of reporting in Spanish published by the Nuevo Herald (affiliated with the Miami Herald) by Gonzalo Guillén and Gerardo Reyes:
The U.S. government has made little effort to investigate a U.S. army sergeant and a Mexican civil contractor implicated in Colombia in the rape of a 12-year-old girl in August 2007, according to an El Nuevo Herald investigation.
The suspects, Sgt. Michael Coen and contractor Cesar Ruiz, were taken out of Colombia under diplomatic immunity, and do not face criminal charges in the United States in the rape in a room at Colombia’s German Olano Air Force Base in Melgar, 62 miles west of Bogota.
Colombian prosecutors issued arrest warrants. But they were “not executed because of the immunity of Coen and Ruiz.” Under a series of treaties dating back to 1962, members of the US military stationed in Colombia are immune from prosecution. That immunity has since been extended to private security firms, which have been implicated in a series of crimes in Colombia related to drug- running, money laundering and rape.
Guillén and Reyes write that the US military made no effort to interview key witnesses, including the victim. A representative of the US Army did show up at the victim’s hometown of Melgar to question the victim’s mother, Olga Lucia Castillo, about the “life and customs” of her daughter: “In an interview with El Nuevo Herald, Castillo said a man who introduced himself as Jhon Ramirez, US Army criminal investigator, interrogated her at a police station in downtown Bogota. The interview was blunt, Castillo said, with Ramirez armed with a gun during the interrogation.”
“He seemed more interested in having me sign a release exonerating (Coen and Ruiz),” Castillo said, “than learning what happened with my daughter.”
Here, in Spanish, Guillén and Reyes provide a detailed description of the assault, based on an interview they did with the mother. After the crime, the victim tried to commit suicide, and the family had to flee Melgar, joining the millions of others of Colombia’s internally displaced peoples (Colombia is second only to Syria in numbers of internal refugees).
This case is back in the news in Colombia because it was included in a report issued by the Comisión Histórica del Conflicto y sus Víctimas—a commission established to write an overview history of Colombia’s armed conflict. The commission (whose 804-page report can be found here) is a sort of watered-down version of a truth commission, established in a 2014 accord signed by the Colombian government and FARC guerrillas as part of peace talks aimed at ending the country’s half-century-long civil war. It was quickly put together, meant mostly to allow all sides in the conflict to present their interpretation of the conflict’s origins.
The chapter titled “sexual imperialism” (part of a larger section on the role of the United States in supporting state terrorism, written by Renán Vega, a Colombian historian based at the Universidad Pedagógica Nacional de Bogotá) recounts another serious sexual assault that, like the rape described above, was covered by the Colombian press, both in print and on TV, but ignored in the United States: in 2004, “53 underage girls were sexually abused by mercenaries, who filmed and sold the tapes as pornographic material.” According to one news story, the scenes on the tapes were “hard, crude, and violent.” The case was taken up by the Colombian human-rights organization, “Corporación Colectivo de Abogados ‘José Alvear Restrepo.’” But immunity held. The victims of this crime likewise were forced to flee their homes. At least one committed suicide.
The Comisión Histórica doesn’t name the private security firm involved. The Colombian press, however, identifies DynCorp, a Virginia-based contractor. Dyncorp is only slightly less infamous than Blackwater, having been involved in numerous international outrages, including, as David Isenberg, author of Shadow Force: Private Security Forces in Iraq, writes, “a sex slavery scandal in Bosnia in 1999, with its employees accused of rape and the buying and selling of girls as young as 12.”