"Adultery" site sued

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I did. It did not specify what law exactly was being violated.

But apparently one is being violated. Allegedly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK. Although I disagree that its a straight forward conclusion.

It is for me. Although you may feel there is evidence that adultery has a positive effect on the social environment.

Originally posted by divegeester
Why shouldn't adultery be against the law?

When two people get married they enter into a contract. Frequently this contract involves a commitment to sexual fidelity. Breaking of a contract is challenged in court under contract law.

An immoral act certainly, but illegal, i don't think so.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Treating marriage as a contract like any other can have its difficulties. In 18th and early 19th Century England divorce was illegal. They reasoned that as a contract it was possible for a third party to buy out a marriage - so they had wife auctions instead [1].

I tend to agree with the direction your posts seem to be in, there's something wrong wi ...[text shortened]... e breakdown of their marriage.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_selling_(English_custom)

I agree, but nevertheless a marriage "contract" or whatever one chooses to call it, is legally binding. To dissolve the arrangement requires a legal process.

Originally posted by JS357
There is a difference between a crime and a violation of contract. One is prosecuted by the state on its behalf, the other is prosecuted by the plaintiff, a private party, on its behalf.

The French law reads "Married partners owe each other the duty of respect, fidelity, help and assistance."

I believe this creates at most, a contractual obligation betwe ...[text shortened]... wo other parties. I am wondering what harm has been done by the website owners to the plaintiff.

Yes, good point. It may require a civil suit to be filed. This will be an interesting case as I'm sure there are thousands of US lawyers drooling over this just waiting to get a posse of plaintiffs together.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
An immoral act certainly, but illegal, i don't think so.

I think the morality of the issue is a smoke screen. There is a legal case in here somewhere I think, for those with the motivation to see it through. I agree with JS though, it will probably require a civil action.

Originally posted by divegeester
If the site is doing nothing either immoral and it is closed down based on a spurious French law then one could argue that the action was a "poke in the eye" to the free market. I think your over thinking that piece.

And I think you are over dramatizing it. I don't think the 'free market' really has any real relevance to the issue.

Originally posted by divegeester
But apparently one is being violated. Allegedly.

Yes, I got that. I was just wondering which law.

Originally posted by divegeester
I agree, but nevertheless a marriage "contract" or whatever one chooses to call it, is legally binding. To dissolve the arrangement requires a legal process.

But what is in that contract? All I have is a marriage certificate. We said some vows, but they weren't written down. As far as I know, it would be illegal for me to marry again (in most countries) if I don't first get a divorce (or annulment), but I am not aware of very many other legal restrictions. There are some issues to do with money, and taxes but I don't think they are very clearly stated in a 'marriage contract'.

Originally posted by divegeester
I think the morality of the issue is a smoke screen. There is a legal case in here somewhere I think, for those with the motivation to see it through. I agree with JS though, it will probably require a civil action.

Purely on the idea of adultery itself been viewed as a illegal act, i would still maintain it is better categorized as an immoral/sinful act and closer aligned to 'greed' or 'lust' than failure to pay one's taxes.

1.luxuria (lechery/lust)
2.gula (gluttony)
3.avaritia (avarice/greed)
4.acedia (sloth/discouragement)
5.ira (wrath)
6.invidia (envy)
7.superbia (pride)

Human beings are not perfect creatures, and things are rarely black and white. We live in a world of grey, the reason perhaps you mistake it for a smokescreen.

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes, good point. It may require a civil suit to be filed. This will be an interesting case as I'm sure there are thousands of US lawyers drooling over this just waiting to get a posse of plaintiffs together.

The current suit, ACF v Gleeden, or its French equivalent, is in civil court with ACF seeking to have Gleeden restrained from promoting adultery to women.

Women join the site at no cost and then, men pay to contact them for a liaison. While there are questionable aspects, such as whether this is pimping, I fail to see how ACF is harmed, even though its interests are not served by the encouragement of adultery. In addition, Gleeden may have a free-speech case; one might say the case involves the marketplace of ideas.

Now, might a husband bringing suit under the law against an adulterous wife toss in Gleeden as a co-defendant, as well as the man (assuming it is a man) involved? But what would he sue for? What remedy would he seek?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I think you are over dramatizing it. I don't think the 'free market' really has any real relevance to the issue.

OK it's a free world as well as a free market.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But what is in that contract? All I have is a marriage certificate. We said some vows, but they weren't written down. As far as I know, it would be illegal for me to marry again (in most countries) if I don't first get a divorce (or annulment), but I am not aware of very many other legal restrictions. There are some issues to do with money, and taxes but I don't think they are very clearly stated in a 'marriage contract'.

Go commit adultery and find out how many expensive legal teeth get sunk into your ass.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Purely on the idea of adultery itself been viewed as a illegal act, i would still maintain it is better categorized as an immoral/sinful act and closer aligned to 'greed' or 'lust' than failure to pay one's taxes.

1.luxuria (lechery/lust)
2.gula (gluttony)
3.avaritia (avarice/greed)
4.acedia (sloth/discouragement)
5.ira (wrath)
6.invidia (e ...[text shortened]... lack and white. We live in a world of grey, the reason perhaps you mistake it for a smokescreen.

It's impossible to legislate for morality, therefore in this circumstance it is largely irrelevant and any moral rhetoric a smokescreen to the real issues which is what can actually be demonstrated in law.

Originally posted by JS357
The current suit, ACF v Gleeden, or its French equivalent, is in civil court with ACF seeking to have Gleeden restrained from promoting adultery to women.

Women join the site at no cost and then, men pay to contact them for a liaison. While there are questionable aspects, such as whether this is pimping, I fail to see how ACF is harmed, even though its int ...[text shortened]... s the man (assuming it is a man) involved? But what would he sue for? What remedy would he seek?

Yes I see your point, it would difficult to prove cause.