In what statute or in what common law cases was this law decided? Can you give examples of its application?
IANAL.
Yet you're confident that there is such a law, even though you've not produced any evidence of such?
In what statute or in what common law cases was this law decided? Can you give examples of its application?
IANAL.
IANAL.
Yet you're confident that there is such a law, even though you've not produced any evidence of such?
I don't understand. What have you explained? Do paparazzi not publish photos of celebrities all the time? Are people sued for publishing shots of celebrities?
If I put a photo up on facebook of me with a friend, could that friend sue me because I published his photo without his permission?
IANAL, but if you pose together for a photo, it is usually assumed that you'll show those photos to third parties, so I guess that counts as tacit permission. But he can withdraw that permission in which case, while you won't be liable for having published it in the first place, you are obliged to take it down.
None of what the neighbor did was illegal. He had legally obtained the key and had been permitted in the house while the occupants were absent, so trespassing was not an issue. At this time, there was no actual statute which made it illegal to film a person without their knowledge. The Louisiana Legislature has since corrected this omission.
This thread is not without some humorous overtones. You think this guy got in trouble for doing this pic? Was a perv? or just had a wry sense of humor?View attachment 1266
This thread is not without some humorous overtones. You think this guy got in trouble for doing this pic? Was a perv? or just had a wry sense of humor?View attachment 1266
If you're going to wear a kilt and sit down on a low wall in a public place, legs spread and your junk front and centre, frankly I don't think you've got anything to complain about, even if someone takes your photo and says 'I am going to jerk off to this later'.
None of what the neighbor did was illegal. He had legally obtained the key and had been permitted in the house while the occupants were absent, so trespassing was not an issue. At this time, there was no actual statute which made it illegal to film a person without their knowledge. The Louisiana Legislature has since corrected this omission.
But it shouldn't be illegal to film someone without their knowledge, when those people are in public places. (A non-public place, like your own home, is completely different).
Imagine you see your best friend's boyfriend in a bar chatting up and kissing a girl who was not his girlfriend. I don't see a moral problem with taking a photo of this to show your friend that he's cheating, even though if he knew he certainly wouldn't have agreed to it.
But...but...but...how many people would actually want to jerk off at the sight of this dangling penis?This thread is not without some humorous overtones. You think this guy got in trouble for doing this pic? Was a perv? or just had a wry sense of humor?View attachment 1266
If you're going to wear a kilt and sit down on a low wall in a public place, legs spread and your junk front and centre, frankly I don't think you've got anything to complain about, even if someone takes your photo and says 'I am going to jerk off to this later'.
With varying degrees of convention regarding dress, I think it's fair to defer to the prudish. It's not likely anyone would be made to feel uncomfortable around fully clothed people. I'm a freedom loving individual and I have no problem with this.What I have been trying to flesh out here is that this whole bullshit about nudity in the first place is just a social convention without much of a purpose...excepting the use of shame.
But it shouldn't be illegal to film someone without their knowledge, when those people are in public places. (A non-public place, like your own home, is completely different).
Imagine you see your best friend's boyfriend in a bar chatting up and kissing a girl who was not his girlfriend. I don't see a moral problem with taking a photo of this to show your friend that he's cheating, even though if he knew he certainly wouldn't have agreed to it.
There is a big difference between filming someone in their bedroom and filming someone in a bar. Would you think it right to film a cheater in their bedroom, without their knowledge?
With varying degrees of convention regarding dress, I think it's fair to defer to the prudish. It's not likely anyone would be made to feel uncomfortable around fully clothed people. I'm a freedom loving individual and I have no problem with this.What I have been trying to flesh out here is that this whole bullshit about nudity in the first place is just a social convention without much of a purpose...excepting the use of shame.
But...but...but...how many people would actually want to jerk off at the sight of this dangling penis?If you're going to wear a kilt and sit down on a low wall in a public place, legs spread and your junk front and centre, frankly I don't think you've got anything to complain about, even if someone takes your photo and says 'I am going to jerk off to this later'.
So you should be allowed to create and possess a work of art, but you should not be allowed to share it? That is a nuanced view....does this mean you also think there's a moral right to surreptitiously record other people's conversations?
If a conversation happened in a public place where there is cannot be a reasonable expectation that nobody could overhear you (or eavesdrop), it does seem to me that recording what you hear (for your own 'personal use') is not morally different enough from purposely eavesdropping to warrant legal restraint. Indeed, you could write down everything that two people say in an eavesdropped conversation, and that to me does not seem additionally morally objectionable above and beyond the act of eavesdropping.
But this does not mean surreptitious recording in non-public places would be acceptable, nor does it follow that distributing the surreptitious recordings gleaned from public places is morally acceptable.
Indeed not. Just as whether it's a public place makes a difference, and whether you're hearing or recording makes a difference, and whether you distribute the recording makes a difference, and whether you sell it or give it away for free makes a difference, likewise, it makes a difference whether the person photographed without his consent is the main focus of the photo. Further, it makes a difference whether it's a face shot or a back shot or a crotch shot, whether the photo is embarrassing, whether you got the embarrassing shot by accident or by hunting for an opportunity, and whether the photo serves some wider social purpose such as exposing official corruption or two-timing boyfriends. All of these things make a difference and the legislature weighs the differences when it decides where to draw the line.People take photos without the consent of everyone in the photos all the time -- a huge number of photos are taken in busy tourist locations with people other than the main focus of the photos being in them. I can hardly imagine that's morally objectionable.
If you put it on display people are allowed to take pictures. It isnt like he lifted up skirts or pulled down trousers, etc. Nor was this is a washroom or other private area. I dont see anything that should be actionable. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Much ado about nothing.
"on display"?
I really don't care how short a skirt is, what these men are doing needs to be illegal:
View attachment 1262
View attachment 1263
View attachment 1264
And in many places it already is.
So you should be allowed to create and possess a work of art, but you should not be allowed to share it? That is a nuanced view.
It's clear that recording what you hear is morally different from purposely eavesdropping; exactly how morally different two things need to be in order to consider them "morally different enough" is always a question reasonable people can disagree about. Legislatures by and large draw the line slightly differently from where you draw it, and in this they appear to be conforming to public opinion. Legislatures also have nuanced views.
My point isn't that their line is any better than yours; my point is that your "You do not have the right to prevent X. By extension, you also don't have the right to stop Y." formulation isn't any kind of argument; it's just a declaration that the place you draw the line isn't between X and Y. The California legislature draws the line between writing down what you hear and taping it. Do you have an actual argument for why the line should be drawn between taping it and playing the tapes for others?
(Funny story about that. The California statute explicitly says "electronic". This means if you somehow manage to record a private conversation mechanically onto an old Edison wax cylinder without giving yourself away, it's legal! )
Indeed not. Just as whether it's a public place makes a difference, and whether you're hearing or recording makes a difference, and whether you distribute the recording makes a difference, and whether you sell it or give it away for free makes a difference, likewise, it makes a difference whether the person photographed without his consent is the main focus of the photo. Further, it makes a difference whether it's a face shot or a back shot or a crotch shot, whether the photo is embarrassing, whether you got the embarrassing shot by accident or by hunting for an opportunity, and whether the photo serves some wider social purpose such as exposing official corruption or two-timing boyfriends. All of these things make a difference and the legislature weighs the differences when it decides where to draw the line.
Arguments of the form "This is okay; therefore that is also okay." aren't valid arguments until you explain why none of the differences between this and that should carry any weight.
It's "on display" from the angles these men are taking the photos - same as the DC creep or the Texas pervNote that what he's taking pictures of is *NOT* on display, that is *NOT* what we are talking about. I agree that such photography should be illegal.
It's "on display" from the angles these men are taking the photos - same as the DC creep or the Texas pervNote that what he's taking pictures of is *NOT* on display, that is *NOT* what we are talking about. I agree that such photography should be illegal.
With varying degrees of convention regarding dress, I think it's fair to defer to the prudish. It's not likely anyone would be made to feel uncomfortable around fully clothed people. I'm a freedom loving individual and I have no problem with this.What I have been trying to flesh out here is that this whole bullshit about nudity in the first place is just a social convention without much of a purpose...excepting the use of shame.