Kim Kardashian is virtually immune from prosecution under California laws, according to TMZ, for leaking a damaging phone conversation between her husband and Pop Princess Taylor Swift. Kim, as expected, did her “homework” especially since her late father was a brilliant lawyer who defended O. J. Simpson back in 1995. Obviously, the Swift camp is forgetting this simple fact when the star’s representative demanded that Kimye cease and desist from further propagating the controversial recording.
Based on the phone conversation between the award-winning rapper and the multi-awarded pop singer, the former’s battle strategy worked like a charm. It did hook Taylor into whatever shape or form Kanye’s rap takes, especially since Swift gave the rapper what can be presumed as blanket authority anyway with her recorded phone statement “Like, I never would have expected you to tell me about a line in one of your songs.”
Taylor should have known what Kanye was up to when he came up to her to discuss his “Famous” project which is something similar to a Star Wars Death Star. The fact that he sounded all nice and respectful should have awakened Swift’s natural-born instincts that she was walking into a trap. However, no one could blame Taylor Swift because during the time, she was “high” from receiving an award. Kanye played the perfect con, and now his wife, Kardashian West makes Swift suffer yet again for the second time.
5 WEDDING STYLE RULES I LOVE TO BREAK https://t.co/NstXkpFHi8— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) July 19, 2016
“I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative, one that I have never asked to be a part of, since 2009,” pleads Taylor Swift in a tweet. Unfortunately, by accruing to the bait and switch tactic of Kim Kardashian’s sparring partner and being tied into a recorded phone conversation that the whole world has heard, Swift is now inextricably linked to the smart couple for all eternity.
Under California laws, it is indeed unlawful, according to TMZ and Daily Mail, to record a phone conversation without both party’s consent but here goes the loophole. A criminal offense or felony is null and void when there is no expectation of privacy. Here’s the entire legal scapegoat straight from “tap.”
“Under California law recording a confidential communication only becomes a crime if there is no possibility that the caller could have been overheard. TMZ have listened to the full tape and it was clear that Kanye’s end was on speaker phone and producer Rick Rubin speaks up several times. They say a film crew was also present, filming Kanye.”
Faced with this unfortunate situation, Taylor Swift still has one other recourse. She could sue for sexual harassment. Interestingly, the singer and songwriter has never thought of doing this, even when this whole charade has been going on between her and Kim Kardashian’s husband for six long years. And by the looks of it, this celebrity feud can go on forever.
Vox looks back at 2009 when Kim’s other half rudely interrupts Taylor as she accepts a trophy from the Video Music Awards to tell her that it should have been Beyoncé who should have been in the singer’s place at the stage. Fast-forward to 2016 and Kim Kardashian’s hubby has hatched a full-blown music video of his infamous “Famous” rap song which includes, among other celebrities, a stark naked image in Taylor Swift’s likeness.
That is not only “character assassination” as Taylor Swift herself would put it — it is also a cut-and-dried example of sexual harassment, under the definition of Teen Vogue. One salient point, according to the source, is that “Consent is something that is ongoing throughout any sexual encounter and can be renegotiated at any time.”
Applied to the still raging Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, and Taylor Swift celebrity feud, Swift might have consented once to Kanye’s aggressive tactics by means of a recorded phone conversation. However, Kim Kardashian West’s proliferation of a music video that her husband made, the one which explicitly says “I think me and Taylor might still have sex,” requires a renegotiation in order for the statement not to be construed as sexual harassment. To date, no such renegotiation can be found.
[Photo by Mike Coppola/Getty Images]