Academic

Pollard on Intentional Sex Torts: Continuing the Discussion

By propertyprof

I told you last week that we haven't heard this last of this.  Here's the latest roundup of the responses to Deana Pollard Sacks' article on "Intentional Sex Torts." 

First, the background.  The whole discussion began with Deana's post at flp last week.  (And remember what Deana's talking about is tort recovery not criminal liability--hence the name sex torts.  That distinction gets lost in a lot of the comments.)  That was picked up by Professor Marc J.  Randazza of Barry University's Law School at The Legal Satyricon, which led in turn to abovethelaw's discussion.  Lots and lots of comments at abovethelaw.

Then there's geeklawyer.  Yikes.  And two posts over at Simple Justice and here.  Bookworm takes it up here  and womensspace takes it up here.  Am I missing anything?  I want to talk a lot more about the substance of this shortly.

Alfred Brophy

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on May 08, 2008 (boomark / email).