If you're in a public space, people may be filming you.
It's a PUBLIC space, not yours. Your lack of self-control will rightly get you fucked up if you assault the wrong person, and there'll be a good chance of everyone watching a satisfying video of you getting punched while trying to take someone's phone.
Here's different optics to consider: we know for many camera-enabled devices to deliver recordings to the cloud, where the data is used by authorities, often times in a very improper way.
In US, it is coordinating ICE raids; in other countries, it's other kinds of shady and inhumane acts.
Fighting this on the level of legislation is great...when it works. Overturning the power of a dictator authority or simply struggling against decisions that are made up above often takes illegal, brutal acts, or at least ones of misdemeanor.
It sure never hurts to ask someone to stop first, but then I can see an angle when refusal is going to escalate things badly for reasons that could be understood.
I think the assumption people are making here with my original comment is that I wouldn’t first tell them to stop and delete whatever they had recorded. Which is my fault because I can see that from the way I said it. But if that doesn’t work? Well, they don’t just get to keep doing it.
I'm not defending this guy, and yes, as I stated laws can be changed to account for new technologies and new definitions of public spaces and privacy rights.
The point I'm making is that people shouldn't start altercations that may have permanent consequences over their anger control problems, including the woman in question.
You can't put your hands on people unless they put their hands on you first, tough guy.
Something being in a public space does not give everyone there free reign to do things that are rude. And given the upvotes/downvotes it seems like most people tend to agree with me here.
I was not going to downvote your comment despite disagreeing with it, but since you are now citing your downvote/upvote ratio as proof that most people support your position, you now get downvotes from me.
When in public, you can be recorded. Your permission isn't required. Public spaces belong to all. People have the right to film, take photos, and record audio. If you don't want that, campaign for legislation to change it. "Rudeness" isn't a legal term. If you can't tolerate being recorded in a public space, even "rudely", leave. Go somewhere else. If you assault someone recording you in public, you will potentially get the shit kicked out of you by that person, bystanders, and/or cops.
The state, in a legalistic framework, has a near-monopoly on justified escalation to physical violence. The person recording you has to be assaulting you first or disturbing the peace to a degree that it endangers you or other people's safety in order for your violence to be justified as defense.
You can't start a fight legally, but you can finish one. "Rudeness" isn't a good enough reason to start swinging.
TLDR: The law and it's philosophical/moral foundation and practical application doesn't run on what you think, and society is better for it.
Once again, the law says you aren't protected from being recorded in a public space, attractive or not. There's a plethora of ways to legally record people overtly and covertly in public. The law also says you can't grab other people's stuff and destroy it to prevent being recorded.
If the guy was assaulting her or disturbing the peace, she'd be justified in using violence to defend herself. She also had the option to talk to a cop and accuse this guy of harassment, which he was doing and others may have recorded evidence of that. But one is not morally or legally justified in starting fights, only finishing them as self-defense. The amount of force legally acceptable falls under the umbrella of the concept of "reasonable application of force" within what's commonly known as a "force escalation continuum".
So, no "creeps" shouldn't be allowed to record women as that would constitute harassment, but it's better to go through proper legal channels than pretend to be a tough-guy/girl and start an altercation that may have permanent consequences.
I don't know what's so hard to understand about "you're not allowed to put your hands on someone unless they put their hands on you first", but go off, I guess.
Not to mention, what you’re suggesting here, is that this lady should have had her ass kicked by cops and bystanders and that would have been an acceptable outcome. I strongly disagree with that.
Her "ass-kicking" would only be acceptable to the point where she could be detained and arrested.
The guy with smart glasses could also be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace depending on what his exact actions were and if there's recordings of him.
If you're in a public space, people may be filming you.
It's a PUBLIC space, not yours. Your lack of self-control will rightly get you fucked up if you assault the wrong person, and there'll be a good chance of everyone watching a satisfying video of you getting punched while trying to take someone's phone.
TLDR: Control yourself, tough guy.
Here's different optics to consider: we know for many camera-enabled devices to deliver recordings to the cloud, where the data is used by authorities, often times in a very improper way.
In US, it is coordinating ICE raids; in other countries, it's other kinds of shady and inhumane acts.
Fighting this on the level of legislation is great...when it works. Overturning the power of a dictator authority or simply struggling against decisions that are made up above often takes illegal, brutal acts, or at least ones of misdemeanor.
It sure never hurts to ask someone to stop first, but then I can see an angle when refusal is going to escalate things badly for reasons that could be understood.
I think the assumption people are making here with my original comment is that I wouldn’t first tell them to stop and delete whatever they had recorded. Which is my fault because I can see that from the way I said it. But if that doesn’t work? Well, they don’t just get to keep doing it.
Whatever "angle" you see is your mind trying to justify forcefully grabbing someone's property to destroy it.
I don't like surveillance either.
But you can't go around forcefully breaking other people's stuff unless it threatens your well being at that moment.
The thing is, it may actually threaten someone's wellbeing.
Surveillance, especially under a police state, can be a very clear and sometimes immediate threat.
You can't legally commit violence based on a hypothetical scenario.
You can't legally overthrow an oppressive regime, either. Legality is not the same as morality.
Ok, but you can't morally attack someone for a hypothetical scenario either.
Exactly. The amount of people here saying “let the cops do it” or saying something about how whatever response is “illegal” is irritating.
Which in this case it's doing. Next.
I'm not defending this guy, and yes, as I stated laws can be changed to account for new technologies and new definitions of public spaces and privacy rights.
The point I'm making is that people shouldn't start altercations that may have permanent consequences over their anger control problems, including the woman in question.
You can't put your hands on people unless they put their hands on you first, tough guy.
Those comments are from men saving up for a pair to make videos of women for "further study" later.
I wonder how they feel about doing this on playgrounds around children?
So, creepy men are now allowed to stare and record videos of women because technology allows it?
Something being in a public space does not give everyone there free reign to do things that are rude. And given the upvotes/downvotes it seems like most people tend to agree with me here.
I was not going to downvote your comment despite disagreeing with it, but since you are now citing your downvote/upvote ratio as proof that most people support your position, you now get downvotes from me.
Im totally fine with that friend.
Fuck internet points.
When in public, you can be recorded. Your permission isn't required. Public spaces belong to all. People have the right to film, take photos, and record audio. If you don't want that, campaign for legislation to change it. "Rudeness" isn't a legal term. If you can't tolerate being recorded in a public space, even "rudely", leave. Go somewhere else. If you assault someone recording you in public, you will potentially get the shit kicked out of you by that person, bystanders, and/or cops.
The state, in a legalistic framework, has a near-monopoly on justified escalation to physical violence. The person recording you has to be assaulting you first or disturbing the peace to a degree that it endangers you or other people's safety in order for your violence to be justified as defense.
You can't start a fight legally, but you can finish one. "Rudeness" isn't a good enough reason to start swinging.
So again, control yourself.
I didn’t suggest assaulting anyone, you’re trying to paint this in a more violent light than it is.
Forcefully grabbing someone's property to break it is assault.
Then why is Donald Trump not in jail?
Because his handler has blackmail material on the people who would be able to do something about it.
The Corporatist Oligarchy wants him in the presidency (for now).
So, we are now supposed to just let creeps video record women because they paid for fancy glasses? Anyone notice this was a young, attractive woman?
TLDR: The law and it's philosophical/moral foundation and practical application doesn't run on what you think, and society is better for it.
Once again, the law says you aren't protected from being recorded in a public space, attractive or not. There's a plethora of ways to legally record people overtly and covertly in public. The law also says you can't grab other people's stuff and destroy it to prevent being recorded.
If the guy was assaulting her or disturbing the peace, she'd be justified in using violence to defend herself. She also had the option to talk to a cop and accuse this guy of harassment, which he was doing and others may have recorded evidence of that. But one is not morally or legally justified in starting fights, only finishing them as self-defense. The amount of force legally acceptable falls under the umbrella of the concept of "reasonable application of force" within what's commonly known as a "force escalation continuum".
So, no "creeps" shouldn't be allowed to record women as that would constitute harassment, but it's better to go through proper legal channels than pretend to be a tough-guy/girl and start an altercation that may have permanent consequences.
This is what a lawyer who specializes in getting off drunk drivers and playground perverts would argue.
This is shitty behavior.
I don't know what's so hard to understand about "you're not allowed to put your hands on someone unless they put their hands on you first", but go off, I guess.
Not to mention, what you’re suggesting here, is that this lady should have had her ass kicked by cops and bystanders and that would have been an acceptable outcome. I strongly disagree with that.
Her "ass-kicking" would only be acceptable to the point where she could be detained and arrested.
The guy with smart glasses could also be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace depending on what his exact actions were and if there's recordings of him.
...And you think cops in this century of 21 would stop there... why?
Because it's a white woman
Are we talking about the hypothetical being posed or a different one?