re: making Consent an Official Principle (serious request)

[dsleaz]

I would like to know who do I talk to in order to bring up adding Consent as an official principle to the Burning Man Principles. Even if it is widely supported by the community, I feel it will only do what it should if it were added as a principle. Do I talk to the BM LLC, DPW, or something else? Or do I need to go to the Reno Office and talk to the Board in person? I've seen the value of Decommodification when going to a festival and seeing the damages commodification does. I know it might just be a long shot, but I would like to see it happen while I'm here living on this earth. Thanks in advance.

[some seeing eye]

Maybe talk to the Bureau of Erotic Discourse, volunteer to lead a session at the 2024 Burning Man Camp Symposium, sign up for Kindling and see if they have people working on it. Read the Ranger Manual, see how the first timer guide covers it. Look on YouTube/TikTok/etc. for any consent at Burning Man videos. In other communities there is a lot of material that has been developed which could be more incorporated into the burning man culture, especially for first timers.

[dsleaz]

Thank you much. It's a good place to start

[Papa Bear]

I think it's a mistake to add it as a principle. Well-intentioned, but a mistake.

The 10 principles aren't rules or commandments. They were invented almost two decades into the experiment to try to describe the existing culture to people participating in regionals who had never been (and might never go) to BRC. They contain inherent conflicts, and which ones "win out" in any given situation is highly context-dependent.

Consent shouldn't be treated like that. It's not something that applies here but not there. It's mandatory, and that's something we can't emphasize by tossing it in with the "principles".

[The Rod]

The problem with consent as a principle, and you better believe that enough people have a hard enough time understanding simple little principles like communal effort and radical self expression, is that consent is especially tricky at burning man in that,

A. Almost nobody understands how consent actually works. Every other hippy, shaman and conscious energy light worker or whatever thinks that because they they learned a new word they can now police the behavior of other people; "the mean neighbor camp played music I don't like without my consent" or "I did not consent to being photographed" or some other misconstrued attempt at "setting boundaries". Like the time last year that some disgruntled folks from B.E.D. started stealing art from and entering a camp uninvited to engage in violent tirades towards their neighbors because they were offended by said art.

B. Cops. The story I was told, is that long ago in the times before sold out tickets and LED's (mid 1990's if the legends are to be believed), the decision was made/forced that in order for burning man to continue, there had to be law enforcement at the event. And they had to be allowed to take their job very seriously. An integral part of cops doing their jobs is violating the consent of common citizens in order to find out all the crimes those citizens may or may not be doing. "I do not consent to a search" is the magical phrase that all criminals learn that is supposed to keep the cops from violating your consent to steal your weed or therapeutic ketamine suppositories. Supposed to anyways. Consent, real or otherwise perceived as real, imposed at an institutional level like a Principle® couldn't work because the institution (BMORG) is sanctioning the presence of several organizations whose prerogative is the violation of mine and yours consent.

[dsleaz]

I appreciate all the insight and responses. I got the information needed for all of that. The outside world is a thing. The summer of '96 for burning man to create infrastructure is pivotal in understanding that. If it does one day happen, it will be naturally, and as with nature, in due time.

[some seeing eye]

"Compassionate And Respectful Engagement Squad" is an example of work on the dance floor.

Consent on the playa includes photography and video, often discussed, and it needs more work.

Nevada law is very strict in involuntary sexual contact including touching. The Nevada Rape Abuse & Incest National Network has been very active with the org and law enforcement on rape, extreme non-consent.

I see a lot more checking in the moment on playa by asking about hugs.

You can search the many book of face and reddnot forums for consent discussions.

Best with your project! Hope you can participate in the theme camp symposium and on Kindle.

[The Rod]

Consent on the playa includes photography and video, often discussed, and it needs more work.

Yes. And no. But not really. I do have to agree that this discussion needs more work.

This is one of those areas where understanding of consent is lacking. Consent is a legal definition. If a person is attending the Burning Man Event, they have already expressly consented multiple times to being captured on film and video.

When you purchase your ticket and decide to use it to enter Black Rock City are two times when your actions may legally be interpreted as agreeing to the Burning Man Ticket Terms and Conditions. Which includes:

"8. I acknowledge that people are using film, video, and photographic cameras and audio recorders at the Event, and that my image may be captured on film, video, photographs, or audio recordings that may subsequently be displayed or disseminated without my consent or payment of compensation to me, and I release BMP from any liability due to such capturing, display, or dissemination."

While the primary purpose of this clause is to shield Burning Man from a lawsuit when someone loses their job because they were seen on social media dancing naked on top of a whimsically decorated school bus in the Nevada desert, it serves as a legal acknowledgement that a person attending Burning Man may be captured on photo or video. As Burning Man is not a necessary destination for anyone, a person choosing to attend Burning Man has thus willfully consented to be in your photo or video.

Another fun thing is called The Expectation of Privacy. Which is a legal framework for determining whether or not a persons privacy is being infringed upon. This is the guideline that the United States legal system generally follows. While the Expectation of Privacy is not a law per se, it is pretty clear about the fact that once a person leaves the privacy of their own home to enter public space they surrender their Expectation of Privacy when it comes to photo, video and audio recordings. Short story is that as soon as you walk out of your apartment door, you have consented to be in someone else's photo or video.

Burning Man takes place on public land. Yes, it is a private event, but it is happening in the public sphere. I could be on a mountain with a telescope looking at burner titties from 20 miles away. And yes, you consented when you set them free at your robot fart sunrise dance party.

These area few of the legal arguments you may face if you tried to sue someone for taking your picture without your permission at Burning Man. Papa Bear makes a really good point, Consent is mandatory and shouldn't be treated as a principle. It should not be subjective, or open to discussions of interpretation like whether or not it is polite to ask someone before taking their photograph at Burning Man.

Laws and legal agreements are written in ways to be as clear and define-able as possible. Consent should be the same way in how it applies to your person and your legal possessions. Yes, or No. Did you have permission to do/take/touch that?

Nobody reads their terms and conditions these days. But if they did they'd probably be surprised at how many wild things they've consented to over the years. There's a lot of talk about consent at Burning Man and its adjacent cultures and events. Does it engender a greater culture of consent to get in the habit of asking people if they are ok with being photographed or recorded? Thats probably a good conversation to have. But with all the talk about consent, and workshops and self-styled "consent educators" running around, it really astounds me that not enough of those conversations actually include what definable consent really is, how to separate it from manners and etiquette, and why being able to do so is crucially important if you actually want to care about consent.

It's important because when we make a consent conversation about interpretations and nuances and points of view, it defeats the purpose of having a conversation about Consent in the burnery definition of respecting boundaries. Such a conversation should be as crystal clear and definable as possible.

[Papa Bear]

It is probably worth noting that anyone taking pictures or video on playa has also implicitly agreed to the media policy, which expressly limits how those photos may be used, makes it clear that they should ask consent before filming someone, and also requires that if the subject of the shot asks the picture/video taker to stop, they must do so:

https://burningman.org/about/about-us/p ... ing%20them.

[Token]

Man this thing drifted … I was waiting for the ‘teaching of the touching of the little boys and girls’ part.

[The Rod]

Yes, and do you realize that by pointing out the existence of a contradictory "policy" you only further prove your original point?

and also,

We might be kinky perverts, but we're not Catholics.

[dsleaz]

I feel it's an important conversation to have. Our education systems don't teach them, rarely if I've heard anything, religion and morality can but shy away from it often, and there aren't too many places to learn about or find it. The only other place that did that openly was the kink community. I'm sure the conversation strayed too far away from the idea of being a principle but the idea is that it would be there in front of everyone instead of finding out about it later on in the event. Law Enforcement and Government make it difficult to really go about it due to the legal definition of it. Also it doesn't help when leadership doesn't practice what they preach at times. I've seen it more with religion but I digress. Most people aren't aware and if they were, things would be a lot better.

[ygmir]

Yes, and do you realize that by pointing out the existence of a contradictory "policy" you only further prove your original point?

and also,

We might be kinky perverts, but we're not Catholics.

or Muslims...?

[Dr. Pyro]

Speak for yourself Yggy.

[ygmir]

Speak for yourself Yggy.

fair enough, Doc. Didn't realize you'd converted: As-salaam alaikum

[Papa Bear]

Yes, and do you realize that by pointing out the existence of a contradictory "policy" you only further prove your original point?

Eh? I don’t think we’re really disagreeing here. I just didn’t want anyone getting the idea that the fact that state/federal law doesn’t explicitly ban it makes it ok to go filming naked people without consent.

I don’t think the policy is contradictory, though. The org makes it clear in their media policy that anyone taking photos or video is expected to get consent, and to stop filming if asked. They also include terms that give them a way to enforce that policy via the legal system. It’s a private event, they can do that as a condition of admittance. So while it may not be a matter of criminal law, it still is a legal issue.

That said, any enforcement will typically happen only after an image or video has already been posted in public. The org may get the image taken down, and might even be able to get damages imposed, but that doesn’t mean an employer hasn’t seen it in the meantime and used it as a reason to fire someone. That’s why they also include the disclaimer, to protect themselves on the back side of things.

That’s not really any more contradictory that saying sexual contact should only happen with consent, while simultaneously acknowledging there are also predators out there who may violate it.

[some seeing eye]

Consent on the playa includes photography and video, often discussed, and it needs more work.

Yes. And no. But not really. I do have to agree that this discussion needs more work.

This is one of those areas where understanding of consent is lacking. Consent is a legal definition. If a person is attending the Burning Man Event, they have already expressly consented multiple times to being captured on film and video.

When you purchase your ticket and decide to use it to enter Black Rock City are two times when your actions may legally be interpreted as agreeing to the Burning Man Ticket Terms and Conditions. Which includes:

"8. I acknowledge that people are using film, video, and photographic cameras and audio recorders at the Event, and that my image may be captured on film, video, photographs, or audio recordings that may subsequently be displayed or disseminated without my consent or payment of compensation to me, and I release BMP from any liability due to such capturing, display, or dissemination."

While the primary purpose of this clause is to shield Burning Man from a lawsuit when someone loses their job because they were seen on social media dancing naked on top of a whimsically decorated school bus in the Nevada desert, it serves as a legal acknowledgement that a person attending Burning Man may be captured on photo or video. As Burning Man is not a necessary destination for anyone, a person choosing to attend Burning Man has thus willfully consented to be in your photo or video.

Another fun thing is called The Expectation of Privacy. Which is a legal framework for determining whether or not a persons privacy is being infringed upon. This is the guideline that the United States legal system generally follows. While the Expectation of Privacy is not a law per se, it is pretty clear about the fact that once a person leaves the privacy of their own home to enter public space they surrender their Expectation of Privacy when it comes to photo, video and audio recordings. Short story is that as soon as you walk out of your apartment door, you have consented to be in someone else's photo or video.

Burning Man takes place on public land. Yes, it is a private event, but it is happening in the public sphere. I could be on a mountain with a telescope looking at burner titties from 20 miles away. And yes, you consented when you set them free at your robot fart sunrise dance party.

These area few of the legal arguments you may face if you tried to sue someone for taking your picture without your permission at Burning Man. Papa Bear makes a really good point, Consent is mandatory and shouldn't be treated as a principle. It should not be subjective, or open to discussions of interpretation like whether or not it is polite to ask someone before taking their photograph at Burning Man.

Laws and legal agreements are written in ways to be as clear and define-able as possible. Consent should be the same way in how it applies to your person and your legal possessions. Yes, or No. Did you have permission to do/take/touch that?

Nobody reads their terms and conditions these days. But if they did they'd probably be surprised at how many wild things they've consented to over the years. There's a lot of talk about consent at Burning Man and its adjacent cultures and events. Does it engender a greater culture of consent to get in the habit of asking people if they are ok with being photographed or recorded? Thats probably a good conversation to have. But with all the talk about consent, and workshops and self-styled "consent educators" running around, it really astounds me that not enough of those conversations actually include what definable consent really is, how to separate it from manners and etiquette, and why being able to do so is crucially important if you actually want to care about consent.

It's important because when we make a consent conversation about interpretations and nuances and points of view, it defeats the purpose of having a conversation about Consent in the burnery definition of respecting boundaries. Such a conversation should be as crystal clear and definable as possible.

I am not an attorney and I am not Burning Man or ePlaya's attorney.

But ePlayan Rod makes some excellent points.

From my meager understanding, taking photographs is rarely limited under US law. Publishing them comes under "reasonable expectation of privacy." That has generalized into not legally discouraging photography on the street and of police at work. There are laws about taking images of a sexual nature.

What the Burning Man Corporation attempts to do is first, encourage a consent culture photographing or taking videos on the playa, and second, going to court under trademark and copyright law to limit publication of images.

Black Rock City is a temporary community of 80,000 mostly strangers. To make it work, we try our best to be friendly and make new friends in the moment. Making eye contact, smiling, if the smile is returned, not rejected, becomes an opportunity to go deeper to have consent. That is much more fulfilling than publishing a spectator image on social media demonstrating "I'm cool because I was there."

I have also commented often on "bad club behavior" on the dance floor which needs more community education. Bad club behavior is involuntary touching, dosing, or assault. Burning Man is not a festival and it is not a club that accepts "bad club behavior" participants may seek to bring from outside. It is something that needs more emphasis bringing up first time burners. It only takes a small percentage of people misbehaving to change the perception of community.

Speak for yourself Yggy.

Welcome back Doc, I tried to stop by BDV after the rain but heard you pushed out. Hope BDV continues to stick it to M*tt*l!

[The Rod]

Consent is a clearly definable legal term.

If by entering the event I have consented to have my photos taken and posted online then how does someone “ask” for my consent before taking a picture that I have already consented to.

By creating a “policy” that requires asking, it creates opportunities for misunderstanding and misinterpretation of clearly defined legal agreements and responsibilities. Like you said, consent should be taught as clear and uninterpretable as possible.

[Papa Bear]

I see your point, but I think this is just a case of one word being used in two different contexts.

One (the disclaimer) is a very specific legal phrasing that protects the org in civil court. It's not so much that you're actually consenting to Mr. Creepy Asshole taking your picture, it's just that you're acknowledging that you can't sue the org if he does.

The other (the policy) makes clear that *for the purposes of this event*, people are expected to get consent before taking photos/video/audio even if the law would allow otherwise outside the event. That's a clear message to Mr. Creepy Asshole not to do it.

I suspect the existence of the policy may well be what creates the need for the disclaimer. After all, if you are telling people that the policy is that they must get consent to take pictures, then people are likely to expect that pictures won't be taken of them. But the org can't actually guarantee that - it's logistically impossible. So absent a clear disclaimer to the contrary, they could potentially be held liable when Mr. Creepy Asshole does snap pics of a naked person and put it up on a website.

Now, maybe there's a different way to phrase the legal disclaimer that would accomplish the same thing without using the term "consent". IANAL, so I really don't know.

[wraith]

I see your point, but I think this is just a case of one word being used in two different contexts.

One (the disclaimer) is a very specific legal phrasing that protects the org in civil court. It's not so much that you're actually consenting to Mr. Creepy Asshole taking your picture, it's just that you're acknowledging that you can't sue the org if he does.

The other (the policy) makes clear that *for the purposes of this event*, people are expected to get consent before taking photos/video/audio even if the law would allow otherwise outside the event. That's a clear message to Mr. Creepy Asshole not to do it.

I think it would be a good thing, community wise, if a few more people got thrown the fuck out and denied access in the future for creepshotting. We're crawling with cops, it shouldn't be impossible to have a 'hey officer, this dude is taking pictures of me I'm uncomfortable with' conversation, and I'd wager good liquor that the resulting fishing expedition would find traction.

Probably overplaying it, but goddamn am I tired of people who don't get that consent is consent, and taking pictures to post up on r/festivalsluts without permission is pure poison to any atmosphere of freedom.

[The Rod]

[redacted]

[ygmir]

@wraith: LE is there to enforce laws, not ORG rules. You'd probably have to contact Rangers, and good luck with anything happening there.