Yo!

[KmH]

When we are out in public, we don't/can't have any expectation of privacy. Consequently, no one needs our permission to film or photograph us.
And, our likeness can in most cases be used - without our permission - for non-commercial purposes.
Laws regarding Camera phone - Wikipedia

So if you're photographed or filmed while out in public, be forewarned that if your actions/words have any chance of coming back to haunt you, like at the cost of your job or your standing in the community, blame the person you see when you look in a mirror.

. . . Tarin Olson, a professor and counselor at Golden West . . . College . . . in Huntington Beach was identified in a video telling a Long Beach couple to "go back to your home country.". . .

who she later complained had

. . . "filmed me without my permission."

O.C. college professor accused of racism in street encounter caught on viral video

 

[Derrel]

Agreed...in public? NO expectation of privacy!!!!

 

[tirediron]

While I agree that there's no expectation of privacy when out in public, there should be protection against publication, ESPECIALLY when it's something that is published with the deliberate intent of causing a negative impact.

 

[Derrel]

While I agree that there's no expectation of privacy when out in public, there should be protection against publication, ESPECIALLY when it's something that is published with the deliberate intent of causing a negative impact.

I simply can NOT agree with that sentiment...in fact, I vehemently, vehemently disagree with it, and clicked the Disagree button to show that (my 56th use of said button in over 40,000 replies).

What if a public official, or a crooked cop, or a street thug, or a mugger, or a traffic violator were filmed? Should _their_ actions not be published? At times, when people do things that will bring shame or contempt toward themselves...they deserve what they get.

If I were filmed littering, or defacing public property, or urinating in public...WHY should I be exempt from having my reprehensible actions published for others to see?

Freedom of the press, and freedom of speech...we have broad protections for both, but a person cannot be protected from being a despicable a**ho)@ with some type of non-publish clause...

 

[john.margetts]

As always, these things are place specific. In England, there is no GENERAL expectation of privacy in a public place (otherwise would be an oxymoron) but we have a number of specific expectations of privacy. Examples are basically those situations where you have no choice but to deal with something and cannot avoid being in public at the time (children and illness come to mind).

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk

 

[john.margetts]

While I agree that there's no expectation of privacy when out in public, there should be protection against publication, ESPECIALLY when it's something that is published with the deliberate intent of causing a negative impact.

I simply can NOT agree with that sentiment...in fact, I vehemently, vehemently disagree with it, and clicked the Disagree button to show that (my 56th use of said button in over 40,000 replies).

What if a public official, or a crooked cop, or a street thug, or a mugger, or a traffic violator were filmed? Should _their_ actions not be published? At times, when people do things that will bring shame or contempt toward themselves...they deserve what they get.

If I were filmed littering, or defacing public property, or urinating in public...WHY should I be exempt from having my reprehensible actions published for others to see?

Freedom of the press, and freedom of speech...we have broad protections for both, but a person cannot be protected from being a despicable a**ho)@ with some type of non-publish clause...

There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Offering a passer-by who is lawfully carrying out their business in a discrete manner some protection against having their image published does not even slightly impact of the publication of illegal activity.



Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk

 

[Designer]

While I agree that there's no expectation of privacy when out in public, there should be protection against publication, ESPECIALLY when it's something that is published with the deliberate intent of causing a negative impact.

In the U.S. our right to free expression is (for now at least) protected. Journalists and other publishers have taken that law to its furthest extreme which has been upheld in the courts.

Also, certain classes of people, notably entertainers and politicians, often find themselves the target of malicious publishing. We commoners still have the opportunity to sue for defamation, but it can be difficult to prove and win the case.

At any rate, journalists have carried the first spear in the fight against frivolous defamation suits, and will usually win.

That's our country. Warts and all.

 

[tirediron]

While I agree that there's no expectation of privacy when out in public, there should be protection against publication, ESPECIALLY when it's something that is published with the deliberate intent of causing a negative impact.

I simply can NOT agree with that sentiment...in fact, I vehemently, vehemently disagree with it, and clicked the Disagree button to show that (my 56th use of said button in over 40,000 replies).

What if a public official, or a crooked cop, or a street thug, or a mugger, or a traffic violator were filmed? Should _their_ actions not be published? At times, when people do things that will bring shame or contempt toward themselves...they deserve what they get.

If I were filmed littering, or defacing public property, or urinating in public...WHY should I be exempt from having my reprehensible actions published for others to see?

Freedom of the press, and freedom of speech...we have broad protections for both, but a person cannot be protected from being a despicable a**ho)@ with some type of non-publish clause...

I'm only #56? Wow... I sure don't rate!



Recording someone who is apparently committing an illegal act is an entirely different kettle of fish; I have no issue with that, BUT... brandishing that all over the Internet is often still not appropriate. You see it, you record it, you turn it over to the Crown Prosecutor. My thinking is this: trial in the court of public opinion usually renders a verdict in keeping with either (1) The first story, or (2) the loudest story. Often these are not the true story, but once tried and so convicted, it is VERY difficult to effect real justice.

As well, just because someone doesn't like something that someone says or does, should not, IMO, give them the right to post that all over the Internet. The example cited by KmH... the person who is the subject of the article made some comments that many found offensive. Fair enough. Were the remarks illegal? I don't think so ('though I'm not 100% sure). Do we know the whole story? No. Why then should this person be subject to these actions. What if you're wearing a green carnation in your button-hole and I HATE green carnations; I record you and put together a huge post on facebook which makes you look like the worst criminal since the beginning of criminals.... is that fair?

 

[Braineack]

Recording someone who is apparently committing an illegal act is an entirely different kettle of fish; I have no issue with that, BUT... brandishing that all over the Internet is often still not appropriate. You see it, you record it, you turn it over to the Crown Prosecutor. My thinking is this: trial in the court of public opinion usually renders a verdict in keeping with either (1) The first story, or (2) the loudest story. Often these are not the true story, but once tried and so convicted, it is VERY difficult to effect real justice.

how are you going to go viral that way?!

 

[waday]

As well, just because someone doesn't like something that someone says or does, should not, IMO, give them the right to post that all over the Internet. The example cited by KmH... the person who is the subject of the article made some comments that many found offensive. Fair enough. Were the remarks illegal? I don't think so ('though I'm not 100% sure). Do we know the whole story? No. Why then should this person be subject to these actions.

Free speech doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want without ramifications.

 

[tirediron]

how are you going to go viral that way?!

Good point!

Free speech doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want without ramifications.

Agree 100%, BUT it also doesn't mean that just because I don't like what you said, I can use it to defame you.

 

[waday]

Agree 100%, BUT it also doesn't mean that just because I don't like what you said, I can use it to defame you.

In order to be "defamed", I would assume that what is being said would generally have to go against accepted morality and public opinion. Being racist in public while being recorded probably wasn't the best option for her.

 

[tirediron]

In order to be "defamed", I would assume that what is being said would generally have to go against accepted morality and public opinion.

Why? The defamation isn't about what the woman who made allegedly racist remarks said, rather, it's about the damage done to her by those to whom she was speaking and being recorded by.

Being [allegedly] racist in public while being recorded probably wasn't the best option for her.

While I agree 100% that her comments seem inappropriate, I don't believe that they were illegal (again... I may be wrong). I fully support the right of the people who felt aggrieved to record it, especially as one never knows what could develop, but I do NOT support their right to publish it.

 

[Braineack]

it's illegal to say means overseas however:

examples:
Man becomes first person convicted of sexism in public place under new Belgian law

Jokes made by a 32-year-old woman on Facebook may cost her two years in jail.

The Swedish newspaper Friatider reported the Gothenburg resident has been charged with “talking in a negative or threatening way about a group of people,” after posting cartoons poking fun at Islam on her Facebook page, according to police.

One cartoon featured a mugshot of a supposed Islamic terrorist having his brain removed and replaced with feces, under the caption “How to Make a Muslim.”

Facebook users reported her to police who began a preliminary investigation. She underwent what was described as a “degrading” interrogation and samples of her DNA were taken for the record. The woman apologized during a police hearing and she protested that she had nothing against Muslims, but aimed the jokes at ISIS, report Voice of Europe.

 

[john.margetts]

One of our fundamental rights in the EU is the freedom from abuse, malice and intimidation. We generally prefer that to the freedom to abuse and intimidate that the USA's 2nd amendment offers.

Sent from my 8070 using Tapatalk