3 ms·

I think what you mean to say is that you live in an "all party consent" jurisdiction. "Two party consent" would imply that if there are more than two parties t

• vageli 8y ago
  This is not correct. For example, > Germany is a two-party consent state—telephone recording without the consent of the two or, when applicable, more, parties is a criminal offence according to Sec. 201 of the German Criminal Code—violation of the confidentiality of the spoken word. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_law... This is similar to how the word "assault", to the layperson, implies a physical element, but to the law it does not.
  • 3xblah 8y ago
    In the first case the term "two party" is describing a defence (consent). Defences may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so the term might be useful in highlighting those differences. In the second case the term ("assault") is the offence itself. It is not a term that is being used to highlight differences in elements or defences amongst jurisdictions. Being accurate in the first case makes sense, regardless of the audience.