Monday, July 14, 2008
Having self-excluded from blogging while abroad, Vice Squad is behind in all our standard obsessions, including self-exclusion. People who joined self-exclusion lists for casinos in Ontario have filed a class action suit. Their gripe is that the casino regulators were not assiduous in keeping the excluded gamblers away. If the authorities in Ontario catch a self-excluded individual trying to sneak into a casino, that person can be charged with trespassing.
Compulsive gambling experts tend to emphasize the personal responsibility of the gamblers themselves to overcome their addiction, and many self-exclusion programs declare that ultimately, it is the bettor's responsibility to keep away. Nevertheless, successful self-exclusion programs do require a credible threat of enforcement, and casinos may well have to be monitored to ensure that they put some effort into erecting and maintaining entry barriers aimed at those on the excluded list. Self-excluded individuals tend to be heavy gamblers, of course, and hence a very profitable clientèle for the casinos. So gambling establishments might have a financial interest in looking the other way when a self-excluded (former) patron walks in the door.
In other self-exclusion news, remember that fellow who wanted a self-exclusion litigant's name revealed? The court had only released the litigant's initials, and this other guy had the same initials, so people too lazy to look deeply into the matter kept thinking that the other dude was the self-exclusion litigant. (I can sympathize, being frequently confused by the unwashed masses with Japan Airlines.) The court rendered a Solomonic decision: the name of the original litigant would not be revealed (in keeping with the anonymity promised to those who place themselves on New Jersey's self-exclusion list), but the court officially affirmed that the "initial" gambler was someone other than the later complainant.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The Mosley Case
Repugnance is a funny thing. Many things that were widely viewed as repugnant years ago, such as blood transfusions or charging interest for loans, are widely accepted today. And other practices that used to be common and accepted -- indentured servitude, say -- have come to be viewed with repugnance. (See economist Alvin Roth's paper for more on repugnance.) Out-of-the mainstream sexual behaviors seem to be losing their repugnance for many people; there was no hint of residual repugnance in the Supreme Court's 2003 overturning of anti-sodomy statutes. And now, in Britain, there is a trial that holds the prospect of reducing the repugnance that sometimes is induced by or aimed at sadomasochism. The case involves a claim of invasion of privacy.
The basic story is that a British tabloid solicited some footage of a sadomasochistic afternoon involving 5 prostitutes and a prominent 68-year old motor-sport and married man, Max Mosley, whose father Oswald was a leading British fascist of the 1930s. [Oswald and his second wife, Max's mother, were interred by the British during the war, around the time that Max was born and toddling through his early years.] The sadomasochistic scene involved some German authoritarian role play, which the tabloid deemed to be Nazi-themed; the not-safe-for-work footage is you-tubeable. (The dominatrix who recorded the activities, slated to be a chief witness for the newspaper, has been dropped from testifying.) Max is contending that the S&M session was a private matter of no public interest. The newspaper's best defence, I suppose, is that the session involved illegal S&M, and the fact that the behavior was criminal provides a public interest. (Prostitution per se is not illegal in Britain, and that angle does not appear to be helpful to the newspaper. Some of the prostitutes have testified for Mosley, and there is no whiff of coercion in the pricey five hour affair, which ended with a cup of tea, of course.)
Is S&M illegal in Britain? Yes, if the practice involves lasting bodily damage -- though there is some dispute over how lasting that damage has to be. The legal standard dates from a 1980's case (the Spanner case) arising out of consensual homosexual S&M activities.
But win or lose, the Mosley case might be reducing the repugnance that is sometimes felt towards sadomasochism. Seemingly normal people enjoy it and practice it -- why should others care? Mosley claims that he has been an S&M enthusiast for 45 years, and he defended the behavior in court:
Impassive in a charcoal suit and sober tie he [Mosley] told the court: “I definitely disagree with the suggestion that any of this is depraved or immoral” adding that it was a “perfectly harmless act between consenting adults.”Mosley's position has been gaining broad support -- and perhaps increasing the acceptance of S&M by non-practitioners.
Vice Squad, now back in Chicago after a (masochistic?) couple of months abroad, proposes some regulation of adult extreme S&M (6-page pdf here).