Jump to content
mille-feuille

Catazaro Declines NYCB Reinstatement; Ramasar to Rejoin

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, cinnamonswirl said:

Did anyone else catch Waterbury's Instagram story today in which she appeared to be offering to show Maxwell additional nude photos of herself (Maxwell) that Ramasar had sent? (To disprove Maxwell's statement that he only sent one photo of her). I found the idea of offering, on a public social media account, to show someone nude photos of themselves as a way of showing her that she too is a victim to be ... odd.

I saw that particular Waterbury IG story and I felt so very uncomfortable and so incredibly supportive of Alexa Maxwell. Maxwell deserves respect and privacy. She deserves her own decisions to be heard and respected and to chart her own course. 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Terms like "distasteful" and "vulgar" suggest that sharing explicit photos of someone without their consent is mostly a violation of public mores regarding nudity and sex. "Upsetting to the women when it was revealed" suggests that it's only harmful when discovered. But it's more than that: it's a fundamental violation of privacy.  It's a violation of trust. It places the value of a man's ego above a woman's right to determine who sees her breasts (or her vulva or her buttocks or herself having sex), when, and in what context. 

That harm was done whether the women involved knew about it or not. 

The question is was there a "violation of public mores"?  Finlay's defense attorney can argue that there was no public exposure of the photos,  no intent to expose them to the public,  and no intent to harm Waterbury.  People engage in any number of activities that are vulgar,  distasteful,  and may even be illegal,  but is there actual harm if nobody knows about them?  I don't know,  but I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, On Pointe said:

The question is was there a "violation of public mores"?  Finlay's defense attorney can argue that there was no public exposure of the photos,  no intent to expose them to the public,  and no intent to harm Waterbury.  People engage in any number of activities that are vulgar,  distasteful,  and may even be illegal,  but is there actual harm if nobody knows about them?  I don't know,  but I don't think so.

It's still a crime if you don't get caught when you do get caught. For instance there was a rape case where a woman recanted her testimony under pressure. Her pictures were later found in the house of a serial rapist who had been terrorizing Washington State. His rape of the woman who recanted her accusation was added to the prosecution and he is currently serving life in prison with no possibility of parole.

The whole thing was made into a Netflix series "Unbelievable."

It wa salso the subject of a Pulitzer Prize winning article.

https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The question is was there a "violation of public mores"?  Finlay's defense attorney can argue that there was no public exposure of the photos,  no intent to expose them to the public,  and no intent to harm Waterbury.  People engage in any number of activities that are vulgar,  distasteful,  and may even be illegal,  but is there actual harm if nobody knows about them?  I don't know,  but I don't think so.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by "public mores." I meant general societal attitudes about nudity and sex—attitudes that determine whether something is deemed "vulgar"—and not whether the particular photos in question were released to the broader public. 

 

Edited by Kathleen O'Connell

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The question is was there a "violation of public mores"?  Finlay's defense attorney can argue that there was no public exposure of the photos,  no intent to expose them to the public,  and no intent to harm Waterbury.  People engage in any number of activities that are vulgar,  distasteful,  and may even be illegal,  but is there actual harm if nobody knows about them?  I don't know,  but I don't think so.

Several people saw the photos. That’s part of the suit. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

People engage in any number of activities that are vulgar,  distasteful,  and may even be illegal,  but is there actual harm if nobody knows about them?  I don't know,  but I don't think so.

Based on the texts between Finlay and his various interlocutors detailed in Waterbury's complaint I think we can safely say that plenty of people knew about them. The whole point at issue is shared photos, not photos no one knew about. The women may not have known about them, but plenty of men apparently did. 

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, canbelto said:

It's still a crime if you don't get caught when you do get caught. For instance there was a rape case where a woman recanted her testimony under pressure. Her pictures were later found in the house of a serial rapist who had been terrorizing Washington State. His rape of the woman who recanted her accusation was added to the prosecution and he is currently serving life in prison with no possibility of parole.

The whole thing was made into a Netflix series "Unbelievable."

It wa salso the subject of a Pulitzer Prize winning article.

https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

I think comparing the Waterbury situation to a rape case is apples-to-oranges reasoning.  Rape is unquestionably a violent crime.  I think that the conflation of what Waterbury is accusing Ramasar of doing with sexual abuse,  harassment and rape is the most dangerous aspect of the entire debacle.  I'd be willing to bet that most of the people demonstrating in front of the theatre don't know what Ramasar is actually accused of doing. The publisher of the theatre blog who has been whipping up opposition to Ramasar seems to realize that he has gone too far and is now trying to walk back the invective.  But considerable,  likely actionable,  damage has already been done.

Surely her lawyer  has warned Waterbury that showing Maxwell nude photos of herself,  with the intent to coerce action on her part,  could be considered harassment or even revenge porn.  As far as Maxwell is concerned,  Waterbury needs to let it go.

Share this post


Link to post

So your logic is that showing Maxwell photos of herself is revenge porn, while sharing photos of Waterbury to multiple men without her consent constitutes no actual harm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Leah said:

So your logic is that showing Maxwell photos of herself is revenge porn, while sharing photos of Waterbury to multiple men without her consent constitutes no actual harm.

 

I think OnPointe was talking specifically about what Ramasar did. As far as I know, he did not share photos of Waterbury to multiple men. My understanding was that he asked Finlay to send photos, and Finlay complied with the request.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, yukionna4869 said:

I think OnPointe was talking specifically about what Ramasar did. As far as I know, he did not share photos of Waterbury to multiple men. My understanding was that he asked Finlay to send photos, and Finlay complied with the request.

OnPointe specifically mentioned Finlay, not Ramasar. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Leah said:

OnPointe specifically mentioned Finlay, not Ramasar. 

Gotcha. I thought you were responding to the post directly above yours.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Leah said:

So your logic is that showing Maxwell photos of herself is revenge porn, while sharing photos of Waterbury to multiple men without her consent constitutes no actual harm.

 

The defining aspect of revenge porn is intent.  "Several" men may have seen the photos of Waterbury.  (Catazaro and Longhitano didn't but she's suing them anyway.). All of us commenting here are aware of their purported existence,  but Finlay did not post them to the internet or threaten to do so.  He didn't want her to know about them at all.  Waterbury stupidly revealed her intent on her Instagram - she wants to coerce Maxwell into breaking up with Ramasar,  an incredible violation of Maxwell's privacy,  and she let the whole world know she has the photos.  How long before she succumbs to the temptation to show them to someone else?

Share this post


Link to post

NYPL 245.15 requires “intent to cause harm.” That’s actually pretty broad. There’s no requirement in the law that Finlay had to intend to publish to the general public (I believe that’s what you think is the standard.) That would be far too narrow, and classic revenge porn usually consists of the images and videos being sent to specific people, not just posted for the world to see. The whole of Finlay’s texts and messages, meanwhile, strongly suggest an intent to degrade Waterbury. Even if you don’t think that should count as harm, it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

I think comparing the Waterbury situation to a rape case is apples-to-oranges reasoning.  Rape is unquestionably a violent crime.  I think that the conflation of what Waterbury is accusing Ramasar of doing with sexual abuse,  harassment and rape is the most dangerous aspect of the entire debacle.  I'd be willing to bet that most of the people demonstrating in front of the theatre don't know what Ramasar is actually accused of doing. The publisher of the theatre blog who has been whipping up opposition to Ramasar seems to realize that he has gone too far and is now trying to walk back the invective.  But considerable,  likely actionable,  damage has already been done.

Surely her lawyer  has warned Waterbury that showing Maxwell nude photos of herself,  with the intent to coerce action on her part,  could be considered harassment or even revenge porn.  As far as Maxwell is concerned,  Waterbury needs to let it go.

I'm not comparing Ramasar's case to the Unbelievable case. I'm saying that once someone has been charged prosecutors can bring in evidence from cases that were previously dropped due to lack of evidence. In this case, the serial rapist was charged with "Marie's" rape even though she recanted the evidence. So if there are more pictures out there circulating Finlay can be held accountable for them even if Waterbury doesn't know about it.

Share this post


Link to post

As several others have noted "revenge porn" isn't a good descriptor for what Finlay et al were engaged in. A better term might be "Non-consensual Pornography" or "NCP. Here's how it's described in a brochure put out by the U. S. Airforce:

What is NCP?

Also known as revenge porn, cyber rape, in- voluntary porn, and nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. NCP is the distribution of explicit/intimate images of a person without his/her consent.

This includes:
(1) Images originally obtained without consent by using hidden cameras, hacking phones, or recording sexual assaults AND
(2) Images consensually obtained within the context of an intimate relationship.

What is distribution?

Distribution includes the posting of images to social media sites and sharing images directly with another person (e.g. via email).

The Cyber Civil Rights Initiative has model state and federal NCP legislation that doesn't require intent to cause harm. It's worth taking a look at their Guide for Legislators.

Edited by Kathleen O'Connell

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Leah said:

NYPL 245.15 requires “intent to cause harm

 

32 minutes ago, Leah said:

ven if you don’t think that should count as harm, it is. 

Those are two separate things:  You can cause harm without intending harm.   (Example:  involuntary manslaughter, in the criminal world.) To prove intent, a lawyer and/or prosecutor would look for direct statements, coded statements, and patterns of behavior to show intent. From everything that has been published in court documents and main stream reporting, I don't see anything that shows they did it to harm anyone.  That they thought there was no harm involved is the issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Helene said:

 

Those are two separate things:  You can cause harm without intending harm.   (Example:  involuntary manslaughter, in the criminal world.) To prove intent, a lawyer and/or prosecutor would look for direct statements, coded statements, and patterns of behavior to show intent. From everything that has been published in court documents and main stream reporting, I don't see anything that shows they did it to harm anyone.  That they thought there was no harm involved is the issue. 

100% agree.  I would even go so far as to say they were willfully blind to what they were doing - still wrong, of course.  
 

I do have to say that I was surprised when Amar was cast in west side story.  I thought he would just continue his career quietly at NYCB since being reinstated.  

Share this post


Link to post

I wasn’t conflating intent to harm and harm itself. Speaking about Finlay, not Ramasar. He shared the photos to several men including a pimp and compared Waterbury to a farm animal. I think there can be a string inference of an intent to degrade and embarrass Waterbury. 

4 minutes ago, GB1216 said:

100% agree.  I would even go so far as to say they were willfully blind to what they were doing - still wrong, of course.  
 

I do have to say that I was surprised when Amar was cast in west side story.  I thought he would just continue his career quietly at NYCB since being reinstated.  

“Willful” blindness, like “willful” disregard and extreme recklessness, can count as intent.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Leah said:

I wasn’t conflating intent to harm and harm itself. Speaking about Finlay, not Ramasar. He shared the photos to several men including a pimp and compared Waterbury to a farm animal. I think there can be a string inference of an intent to degrade and embarrass Waterbury. 

“Willful” blindness, like “willful” disregard and extreme recklessness, can count as intent.

Yes exactly.  

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Leah said:

“Willful” blindness, like “willful” disregard and extreme recklessness, can count as intent.

And how do you show that it was willful blindness?  Willful blindness suggests that the person had blatant evidence that shows the behavior was wrong, or is given specific evidence that harm could come of it and ignored it anyway, when society at large, and, Waterbury's lawyer is arguing, specific the institutions that turn a blind eye towards especially bad behavior in men and boys in ballet, tell them something very, very different.  

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Leah said:

I wasn’t conflating intent to harm and harm itself. Speaking about Finlay, not Ramasar. He shared the photos to several men including a pimp and compared Waterbury to a farm animal. I think there can be a string inference of an intent to degrade and embarrass Waterbury. 

“Willful” blindness, like “willful” disregard and extreme recklessness, can count as intent.

I don't believe that Finlay showed photos of Waterbury to a "pimp".  I just don't.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, On Pointe said:

I don't believe that Finlay showed photos of Waterbury to a "pimp".  I just don't.

Cool. I hope you’re right, but that’s what has been alleged and not yet denied.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Leah said:

I wasn’t conflating intent to harm and harm itself. Speaking about Finlay, not Ramasar. He shared the photos to several men including a pimp and compared Waterbury to a farm animal. I think there can be a string inference of an intent to degrade and embarrass Waterbury. 

“Willful” blindness, like “willful” disregard and extreme recklessness, can count as intent.

It was the donor, Longhitano, who made that comparison, and he was not referring to Waterbury. Longhitano did not see any photos, according to his lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Leah said:

Cool. I hope you’re right, but that’s what has been alleged and not yet denied.

The thing about the pimp was in the original complaint, but was omitted in the amended complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, cinnamonswirl said:

Did anyone else catch Waterbury's Instagram story today in which she appeared to be offering to show Maxwell additional nude photos of herself (Maxwell) that Ramasar had sent? (To disprove Maxwell's statement that he only sent one photo of her). I found the idea of offering, on a public social media account, to show someone nude photos of themselves as a way of showing her that she too is a victim to be ... odd.

Indeed. Alexandra knows best for Alexa, it would appear. It seems to me Waterbury's lawyer should put a lid on this, but maybe there's some upside for her that's not clear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...