Article 135 criminalizes voyeurism, defined as observing or recording a nude person or someone engaged in sexual activity without consent. The penalty is 3 to 5 years in prison. Article 136 penalizes the non-consensual distribution of intimate images or recordings, even where the person consented to the act itself, with the same penalty.
In the event of significant violations of privacy, the persistently persecuted person can assert a claim for compensation against the stalker for the personal injury suffered as a result of the stalking. The assessment of the amount of compensation is a case-by-case decision and only unlawful if the Court of Appeal exceeded its discretionary authority.
Facts of the Case
Ohio Revised Code Chapter 111, known as Ohio’s Safe at Home program, protects survivors of domestic violence, stalking, human trafficking, rape, or sexual battery by allowing them to keep their residential addresses confidential and out of public records. The program is administered by the Secretary of State’s office and is designed to prevent abusers from locating survivors.
In 1998, the Penal Code Act was amended to make the offence of rape gender-neutral and to move away from a phallus-specific definition. The Amendment introduced a minimum sentence of 10 years to a maximum term of life imprisonment and made bail unavailable to persons accused of the offense. The amendment also made mandatory HIV testing for persons convicted of rape, and in the case wherein rape was accompanied by violence or the rapist was unaware of his or her HIV+ status, a minimum sentence of 15 years with corporal punishment was introduced.
In Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 399 (2009), the parents of a minor who had obtained an abortion sued Planned Parenthood, alleging that the procedure was performed illegally without the required parental notification. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought medical records and abuse reports concerning other minors who had received abortions at the clinic over the previous ten years. Planned Parenthood refused to produce those records, citing physician–patient privilege.
The Forum for Women, Law and Development in Nepal brought a petition to the Supreme Court filing for an exhaustive law ensuring privacy for vulnerable groups; particularly women, children, and persons living with HIV/AIDS. The Court ruled that enforcing the right to privacy for these and other sensitive parties in legal proceedings is inextricable from other Constitutional rights, including life and dignity, and vital to ensuring justice.
Sections 157A to 157F of the Seychelles Penal Code criminalize violations of personal privacy involving “private acts.” These provisions prohibit the unauthorized observation, recording, possession, and distribution of visual material depicting private acts, with penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment. A “private act” includes bathing, showering, using a toilet, being nude, or engaging in sexual activity not ordinarily conducted in public. “Distribution” encompasses sending, transmitting, or otherwise making recordings accessible to others.
In State v. Planned Parenthood, 171 P.3d 577 (Alaska 2007), the Alaska Supreme Court struck down the state's Parental Consent Act, which forced minors to obtain parental consent before seeking an abortion, on the grounds that it violated the privacy protection guaranteed by the Alaska Constitution.
The plaintiff, the Child and Family Agency, sought permission to disclose the HIV status of A., a minor teenager living with HIV since birth in the plaintiff’s care, to another minor (B.) who the plaintiff believed had a sexual relationship with A. A. denied having a sexual relationship with B. and refused to consent to the disclosure of his HIV status. The plaintiff argued that it was entitled to disclose A.’s status so that B. could obtain testing, medical treatment, and counseling.
In the case Valley Hosp. Ass’n v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice, 948 P.2d 963 (Alaska 1997), the Alaska Supreme Court held that a quasi-public hospital, which received state funding, could not prohibit elective abortions absent medical, safety, or public welfare justification.
