Is the BDSM community really like the mafia?
spea...@gmail.com
case of the "brutal master" (Glenn Marcus - his name was already all
over the news, so why not mention it?) whose former slave has accused
him of everything from human trafficking to attempted murder.
Take a look at this letter from the "Government" (the legal team
prosecuting Glenn Marcus). They are requesting that the witnesses
against Marcus be allowing to conceal their identities, denying him his
right to confrontation.
The Government is suggesting that the witnesses would be in danger
of retaliation from the BDSM community, as if the communicty were some
sort of mafia that attacks people who endager its freedom.
Therein lies an implicit assumption that the case is, in fact, a
danger to the sexual freedom of BDSMers.. .
An excerpt from a Government letter dated 10/27/2006, available from
public records...
The limited protections requested by the government are
necessary and appropriate to protect the witnesses' safety and
well-being, avoid potential harassment of the witnesses by the press
and others, and prevent undue embarrassment and other adverse
consequences, such as loss of employment.
[snip]
In addition, Marcus's arrest and prosecution has prompted heated
debate online among members of the BDSM community and others, some of
whom see the government's prosecution as oppressive and a threat to
their sexual freedom. These individuals could similarly view the
witnesses' testimony for the government as offensive and wrong, which
could lead to retaliation against the witnesses.
Thus, the limited protections requested by government are
necessary to protect the witnesses from potential harm, harassment,
undue embarrassment and retaliation.
Morgane
> The Government is suggesting that the witnesses would be in danger
>of retaliation from the BDSM community, as if the communicty were some
>sort of mafia that attacks people who endager its freedom.
*puts on shiny suit
There's no such thing as the BDSM community.
Morgane
Troia
> I think to get the definitive answer on that, we'd have to ask the Two Vitos.
>
> Seriously though, that letter is kind of pathetic, and is totally emblematic
> of the kind of "everybody who disagrees with the government is a terrorist"
> thinking that is sadly becoming more and more prevalent. I have no idea
> whether Mr. Marcus is guilty of what he's accused of or not, but he certainly
> deserves a fair trial.
>
You surprise me; I wouldn't have expected you to bite for what is an
obvious troll.
-- Troia
Troia
TINBDSMC?
-- Troia
spea...@gmail.com
Morgane wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2006 12:16:36 -0800, spea...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > The Government is suggesting that the witnesses would be in danger
> >of retaliation from the BDSM community, as if the communicty were some
> >sort of mafia that attacks people who endager its freedom.
>
> *puts on shiny suit
>
> There's no such thing as the BDSM community.
If there is one, Marcus is certainly not a part of it. That's (a small)
part of what makes the notion of him putting out some sort of a hit on
people who testify against him so ridiculous.
When people have a shared trait (or, in this case, loosely related
cluster of traits) that deviates from the mainstream, it's easy for the
ignorant to group all of those people together in order to justify
feeling threatened. They really feel threatened by anyone different
from themselves; it's not nice to feel as if yours isn't the One True
Way.
Take the "Jewish Consiracy." I've been Jewish for thirty years and no
one's invited me to any meetings, but I've actually heard myself blamed
for the oil crisis.
By the way, why have I labelled a troll? My post contained accurate
information I really thought might be of interest to regulars.
Sorry if it shows up twice - Google weirdness.
-Shoshannah
Don SideB
> The Government is suggesting that the witnesses would be in danger
>of retaliation from the BDSM community, as if the communicty were some
>sort of mafia that attacks people who endager its freedom.
If someone were in danger from BDSMers, it would be Mr. Marcus.
Don
Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.
spea...@gmail.com
Norton Zenger wrote:
> I think to get the definitive answer on that, we'd have to ask the Two Vitos.
>
> Seriously though, that letter is kind of pathetic, and is totally emblematic
> of the kind of "everybody who disagrees with the government is a terrorist"
> thinking that is sadly becoming more and more prevalent. I have no idea
> whether Mr. Marcus is guilty of what he's accused of or not, but he certainly
> deserves a fair trial.
>
that.
Mr. Marcus has been under house arrest and required to wear an ankle
bracelet for a year and a half, even though he has extensive ties to
the community (the Long Island community, I mean) and has posted
$1million bail. Generally, this is done only when a person is judged a
danger to society at large.
The basis for deeming him a danger to society are these:
1) a single person has made accusations against him (extensive attempts
to find
anyone else who will accuse him have come up empty); and
2) his relationships often include a dominant, sadistic role; and
3) he has communicated with people via internet fora more or less
dedicated
to self-identified kinky people; and
4) he is involved in BDSM internet pornography.
Except for the first, those criteria describe a strong minority if not
majority of the regular posters here. The first could easily apply in
the future to anyone who's had a relationship with a petty or spiteful
person go bad - and BDSM relationships probably go bad rougly as often
as vanilla ones do.
Now the government is saying that it's reasonable to suppose that
witnesses are in danger from the "BDSM community" - and they'd be
willing to group just about anyone reading this in with the BDSM
community.
Doesn't that make anyone a little bit nervous?
-Shoshannah
Troia
> ...
> By the way, why have I labelled a troll? My post contained accurate
> information I really thought might be of interest to regulars.
>
> Sorry if it shows up twice - Google weirdness.
OK, apologies ... Just WAY too much of that here recently.
FWIW, it had to do with various stuff as you note, as well as the way it
talked about "BDSM community" & such.
-- Troia
a bit sensitive on that issue nowadays
M. Shirley Chong
> I don't know how many people were aware of and/or remember the
> case of the "brutal master" (Glenn Marcus - his name was already all
> over the news, so why not mention it?) whose former slave has accused
> him of everything from human trafficking to attempted murder.
I wasn't aware of the case but after reading your post I did a
little poking around on the web. Certainly sounds controversial.
> Take a look at this letter from the "Government" (the legal team
> prosecuting Glenn Marcus). They are requesting that the witnesses
> against Marcus be allowing to conceal their identities, denying him his
> right to confrontation.
Actually, it doesn't deny him his right to confront his witnesses.
It just denies the press the chance to publish their names and/or
likenesses. The witnesses will still be subject to discovery (the
process by which the defendant's lawyer(s) can question them ahead
of the trial to discover the nature of their testimony) and still be
subject to cross-examination at trial. No defendant has the right to
put the opposing witnesses through a trial-by-press.
Arguments are much more believable when they stick to facts.
> The Government is suggesting that the witnesses would be in danger
> of retaliation from the BDSM community, as if the communicty were some
> sort of mafia that attacks people who endager its freedom.
Well, in a quickie troll of the web, I easily found allegations from
women who said that they started an online relationship with this
guy, sent him naughty pix of themselves and then he turned around
and used possession of those pictures to extort money and/or sexual
acts from them. Now, I have no way of knowing if this is true or not
but if it is, I can see how witnesses might feel very intimidated
about their participation in this case.
I saw quite a lot of testimonials from people saying "gosh, I know
the guy and while he's extreme, he's a stickler for consent." I also
saw posts from people saying they know him, liked him, but felt that
he tended to seek out emotionally unstable partners (with friends
like that, who needs enemies?).
> Therein lies an implicit assumption that the case is, in fact, a
> danger to the sexual freedom of BDSMers.. .
I don't see it that way at all. IF the allegations are true, then
the witnesses against him include people he practiced extortion
against. Protecting their identities means that they will not be
further victimized.
IF the allegations are false, does it hurt his case if the
identities of the witnesses against him are not made generally
available to the press? I honestly don't think so.
> An excerpt from a Government letter dated 10/27/2006, available from
> public records...
>
> The limited protections requested by the government are
> necessary and appropriate to protect the witnesses' safety and
> well-being, avoid potential harassment of the witnesses by the press
> and others, and prevent undue embarrassment and other adverse
> consequences, such as loss of employment.
Considering some of the allegations against him, this seems
sensible. I have no way to know who the witnesses against him are
but for the sake of discussion, say that they include a kindergarten
teacher, a bank vice president and a stay at home mom who is active
in her church. Like it or not, those three hypothetical witnesses
could clearly be harmed if their participation in BDSM were made
known to their employers and associates.
If anything, I think this paragraph actually indicates support for
people who enjoy BDSM--these people are not automatically assumed to
deserve to be hung out to dry by the press.
> [snip]
> In addition, Marcus's arrest and prosecution has prompted heated
> debate online among members of the BDSM community and others, some of
> whom see the government's prosecution as oppressive and a threat to
> their sexual freedom. These individuals could similarly view the
> witnesses' testimony for the government as offensive and wrong, which
> could lead to retaliation against the witnesses.
I notice the use of the phrase "some of whom" which indicates not
that the BDSM community as a whole is being accused but the
acknowledgement that some people who do BDSM might feel so strongly
about this case that they may behave in improper ways.
And in fact, in looking at a handful of websites, this does seem to
be true. I saw posts from alleged friends and supporters of Glenn
Marcus attacking anyone who voiced an opinion that was less than
100% supportive of him.
So I don't think the government is exaggerating here--some people
who are into BDSM are clearly persecuting or attempting to retaliate
online against witnesses who are against Glenn Marcus.
> Thus, the limited protections requested by government are
> necessary to protect the witnesses from potential harm, harassment,
> undue embarrassment and retaliation.
Frankly, I don't see anything objectionable about the letter. It
seems to be sticking to observably true facts--some people *can* be
harmed if their participation in BDSM were to become known to their
employers or associates, the press in this country *does* have a
long track record of harassing people associated with controversial
cases (remember the whole Kobe Bryant fiasco--where Kobe Bryant
ended up admitting to the charges but walking anyway?), and some
people who do BDSM do appear to be intent on harassing or
intimidating witnesses against Glenn Marcus.
The truth isn't always pretty.
Shirley
M. Shirley Chong
> If there is one, Marcus is certainly not a part of it. That's (a small)
> part of what makes the notion of him putting out some sort of a hit on
> people who testify against him so ridiculous.
Straw man argument. The government letter you cited doesn't say that
Glenn Marcus would put a hit of any kind out on opposing
witnesses--which, BTW, is a felony in and of itself--it just says
that public identification as being involved in this case could
cause embarrassment, retaliation, loss of employment, etc.
So far as I can see, the government is right on the money and is
actually acting to protect the interests of the witnesses. How is
that persecuting the BDSM community?
Shirley
TyMeDwn1st
wrote:
Thank you for taking time to do some research and to write a thorough,
articulate, reasoned response to what sounded to me like a mildly hysterical
rant.
On first pass -- and on a second rereading -- I understood the situation the
same way you did.
--
Ty
Who is mostly just a
slightly skewed
Donna Reed
"To announce there must be no criticism of the president, or
that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not
only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to
the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Troia
> Troia come on down:
> this is honestly the first I've ever heard of this case, so if there is
> obvious trollery going on, I plead obliviousness. Certainly based on what
> some cursory research revealed I don't believe this case to be trumped-up or
> fraudulent in any way, though.
>
I know you read serially, so you wouldn't have seen that I apologized
for the characterization.
It just seemed like another "one of those", for various reasons.
*sigh*
Sorry.
-- Troia
M. Shirley Chong
> I agree with your analysis, but think that the letter was perhaps poorly
> phrased; my admittedly cursory reading made it look to me like they might be
> implying that the BDSM community (if such a thing exists) would behave in a
> vindictive manner against witnesses, which as a member of _a_ BDSM community I
> naturally took umbrage to. On a closer reading that doesn't hold up, but it
> really could have been phrased better.
I agree that the letter was badly worded. It reads to me like a
piece of boilerplate that the DA's office uses in any request to
protect witness identities.
But hey, judges are used to reading that sort of writing and quite
often issue equally dense and impenetrable pieces of prose
themselves, so I don't think the quality of the writing impedes
either side's case overall.
> But that's a semantic argument. On the material facts of the case, I have no
> objection to the way it's being handled, and believe that Mr. Marcus is indeed
> receiving the fair trial he deserves.
I certainly didn't see any indication that the case is not being
handled in a professional and ethical manner by the DA's office.
Just because someone is engaged in BDSM doesn't mean that they are
automatically a good person. Even being prominent in the local scene
and active in BDSM oriented organizations doesn't mean that a person
can't also be a criminal. Kneejerk defenses of possible offenders
doesn't make anyone look good.
Shirley
jacqui{JB}
news:elaen4$cki$1...@news.netins.net...
> > I don't know how many people were aware
> > of and/or remember the case of the "brutal
> > master" (Glenn Marcus - his name was already
> > all over the news, so why not mention it?) whose
> > former slave has accused him of everything from
> > human trafficking to attempted murder.
There was some discussion either here or in alt.torture (I'm only just out
of bed and frankly too lazy to look them up) when the story broke.
> I saw quite a lot of testimonials from people
> saying "gosh, I know the guy and while he's
> extreme, he's a stickler for consent." I also saw
> posts from people saying they know him, liked
> him, but felt that he tended to seek out emotionally
> unstable partners (with friends like that, who needs
> enemies?).
Initially, there was quite a bit of confusion, at least the discussions I
read/participated in, because Glenn Marcus characterized himself as "brutal
master" and many people were making the grand leap that it was Brutal Master
(who's posted here a few times and used to be a semi-regular in
alt.torture), of the website http://brutalmaster.com/ -- who is, indeed
extreme and definitely a stickler for consent.
As to the request for limited witness protection, Shirley, I think your
analysis is spot-on. To the OP, *every* community -- especially one as
loosely defined as "the BDSM community" -- is bound to have some unsavory
characters. IIRC, Marcus wasn't really part of an active BDSM community
(although it's possible I'm misremembering), and therefore, in my mind,
couldn't tarnish the BDSM community. Now if you want to point to cases that
damage BDSMers's reputations, look no further than the heads of the
Washington state BDSM club (the name escapes me at the moment) who were
kidnapping and raping Japanese exchange students. Those folks were
well-respected members of their BDSM community.
Anyway ... I can feel a long-winded rant is coming on, so I think I'll stop
now.
-j
Ruth Lawrence
<spea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165537380.9...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Actually, no, for this is an international newsgroup.
Ruth, who realised this behaviour may spread, but still
Brian Downstairs
this instance, any of this may be true in that case. It does not mean that
all such cases are the same. That is like saying guilty till proven
innocent, but it pays to be careful and considerate of people's futures.
There is a worrying trend in all sorts of cases to suggest because something
occurs once, that a similar case will be the same. Each should be seen on
its merits.
I wonder how much of this sort of thing is an attempt by the prosecution to
make it appear that the danger might be worse than it is.
Brian
--
mildew...@blueyonder.co.uk
I hope I grow on you...
I'm a Fungi!!!
Blindness is a way of life.
<spea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165522596....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
M. Shirley Chong
> As to the request for limited witness protection, Shirley, I think your
> analysis is spot-on. To the OP, *every* community -- especially one as
> loosely defined as "the BDSM community" -- is bound to have some unsavory
> characters. IIRC, Marcus wasn't really part of an active BDSM community
> (although it's possible I'm misremembering), and therefore, in my mind,
> couldn't tarnish the BDSM community. Now if you want to point to cases that
> damage BDSMers's reputations, look no further than the heads of the
> Washington state BDSM club (the name escapes me at the moment) who were
> kidnapping and raping Japanese exchange students. Those folks were
> well-respected members of their BDSM community.
Edmund Ball III, David Dailey and Lana Vickery. Ball was president
of the (since re-named) Spokane Power Exchange, Vickery was his
branded slave and Dailey was a friend of both. They deliberately
targeted Japanese women because they thought Japanese women would be
less likely to report their crimes to the police. They made an
attempt to kidnap two women which was thwarted when the women
escaped despite being stungunned. Two weeks later, they kidnapped
three other students. They told the women during the assault that it
was being videotaped and if the women complained to the police the
videotapes would be sent to their fathers in Japan.
The perps were wrong. All five victims immediately reported the
attacks to the police. Turns out Japanese women aren't quite as
easily intimidated as the perpetrators believed.
Shirley
Golden California Girls
> An excerpt from a Government letter dated 10/27/2006, available from
> public records...
>
> The limited protections requested by the government are
> necessary and appropriate to protect the witnesses' safety and
> well-being, avoid potential harassment of the witnesses by the press
> and others, and prevent undue embarrassment and other adverse
> consequences, such as loss of employment.
> [snip]
> In addition, Marcus's arrest and prosecution has prompted heated
> debate online among members of the BDSM community and others, some of
> whom see the government's prosecution as oppressive and a threat to
> their sexual freedom. These individuals could similarly view the
> witnesses' testimony for the government as offensive and wrong, which
> could lead to retaliation against the witnesses.
> Thus, the limited protections requested by government are
> necessary to protect the witnesses from potential harm, harassment,
> undue embarrassment and retaliation.
>
Standard legal boilerplate for a pleading.
As everything in law, the first time it works, forever after you can't vary the
wording or it may not work.
Oh, I believe the prosecutor was talking about "outing" of the witnesses not
overt physical assault by 1 person who practices BDSM "and others".
Richard Evans Lee
M. Shirley Chong wrote:
> I agree that the letter was badly worded. It reads to me like a
> piece of boilerplate that the DA's office uses in any request to
> protect witness identities.
Amusingly the DA's office couldn't even get some of the potential
witnesses online handles spelled correctly.
Richard Evans Lee
M. Shirley Chong wrote:
> I agree that the letter was badly worded. It reads to me like a
> piece of boilerplate that the DA's office uses in any request to
> protect witness identities.
Amusingly the DA's office couldn't even get some of the potential
spea...@gmail.com
> > Take a look at this letter from the "Government" (the legal team
> > prosecuting Glenn Marcus). They are requesting that the witnesses
> > against Marcus be allowing to conceal their identities, denying him his
> > right to confrontation.
>
> Actually, it doesn't deny him his right to confront his witnesses.
> It just denies the press the chance to publish their names and/or
> likenesses. The witnesses will still be subject to discovery (the
> process by which the defendant's lawyer(s) can question them ahead
> of the trial to discover the nature of their testimony) and still be
> subject to cross-examination at trial. No defendant has the right to
> put the opposing witnesses through a trial-by-press.
I can see why you would get that impression from the letter. Actually,
the witnesses are NOT subject to discovery. No one - including the jury
- except the judge, the prosecution, and the defense are allowed to
know who they are, EVER, and the defense is not allowed to know until
the eve of trial.
What that means, among other things, is that the jury may be tainted,
since there's no way to keep someone with previous knowledge of the
witnesses from being in it.
It also means that the defense is not allowed to ask questions about
the witnesses' location, job, etc., even when they're relevent. For
instance, suppose the witness says, "I was a wreck after what he did to
me. I was afraid to leave my house. I may never be the same." If the
witness had been subject to discovery, the defense might say, "Isn't it
true that, immediately after Mr. Marcus' alleged abuse, you moved to
Sacremento and took a six-figure job, were married three months later,
and now have a two-year-old daughter?" However, now they're not allowed
to, because that gives away too much information about the witness.
Essentially, the prosecution is allowed to allege harm, and the defense
is not allowed to refute it.
> Arguments are much more believable when they stick to facts.
Uh-huh.
> Well, in a quickie troll of the web, I easily found allegations from
> women who said that they started an online relationship with this
> guy, sent him naughty pix of themselves and then he turned around
> and used possession of those pictures to extort money and/or sexual
> acts from them.
>
> I saw quite a lot of testimonials from people saying "gosh, I know
> the guy and while he's extreme, he's a stickler for consent." I also
> saw posts from people saying they know him, liked him, but felt that
> he tended to seek out emotionally unstable partners (with friends
> like that, who needs enemies?).
I saw posts from alleged friends and supporters of Glenn
> Marcus attacking anyone who voiced an opinion that was less than
> 100% supportive of him.
>
You have mentioned three online references to Marcus. Two of them lack
any resemblence to anything I've read about him online. I'm not saying
they're wrong, but I would like to know exactly where you saw them.
> So I don't think the government is exaggerating here--some people
> who are into BDSM are clearly persecuting or attempting to retaliate
> online against witnesses who are against Glenn Marcus.
>
Protecting the witnesses from discovery is not something the government
does simply to protect people from professional damage or personal
embarrassment. They had no qualms whatever about splashing Marcus'
family and friends all over the media.
Discovery is blocked only when people are in direct physical danger. My
comparison to the mafia was not exaggeration or rhetoric. This level of
protection is usually invoked only when organized crime is involved.
It isn't enough for the defendent to be connected to a group of people,
some of whom may be sympathetic to the him. When the defendent is, for
example, a Morman, nobody says, "We need to shield the witnesses from
discovery, otherwise SOME of the other Mormans may nasty things about
them and flame them online."