willmore

RoadWarriorFromLP

I don't understand why you would argue vehemently in favor of stating "facts" that don't happen to be true.

The points that were made above were about a basic American legal concept. You could quite easily type ["privacy rights" "public figure"] or something similar into a search engine and get an abundance of legitimate material.

Here is a basic summary:

With respect to certain privacy rights, public figures – such as the President of the United States or Tom Cruise – have virtually no legal right to privacy. What the media may know about a celebrity or politician is fair game for publication, no matter how dastardly the information may be. This is so because where public figures are involved, the newsworthiness of the information will outweigh the right to privacy of the public figure – so long as the information is actually true and was not printed or aired with “actual malice.” When celebrities and politicians sue the media, the legal question generally boils down to two questions: Was the information true, and was it printed without actual malice – or intent to harm the public figure. If the answer is no, the media will succeed on the legal claim nearly every time.

However, if you are an average person with no public figure status, the media doesn’t have a legal right to go printing and airing your dirty laundry. Why? Because it is not particularly newsworthy, and thus, your right to privacy outweighs the newsworthiness of the information.

So, what’s the lesson here? The lesson is this: Don’t go spreading gossip (true or not) about your friends or coworkers to the media , or even on your own website. If your neighbor has a terrible crack addiction and carries on illicit affairs, that doesn’t mean you have the right to go to the press about it.

http://www.legal-definitions.com/civ...ic-figures.htm

Ash UK/US

Just a curiosity question... how come several strangers were seeing this happen but not the parents or the grand parent?

kins

It was packed, and we just didn't notice him. We were watching the children, chatting, putting on suncream, taking the children to the toilet. Not looking for a guy with a camera.

Ash UK/US

I guess I would have to be there to actually see it... it just strikes me as odd.

E3only

I see where you are coming from. Definitely just photographing or videoing is not as such an issue - it's more to do with the fact that that videoing went on for +30 mins (not just looking at kids but extended videoing) - that isn't is concern ?

Putting restriction on photo's on a webpage that's fine. That's by far by choice however +30min videoing activity is a bit creepy (not illegal as all have discussed in detail) but something that will be a worry for any parent.

That's my view....

kins

Your post got me thinking more through exactly what happened at what point, and trying to remember it in detail, and looking back what really strikes me is that the moment I first spotted the guy who was doing the videoing was while we were dressing my daughter.

My husband was dressing her as discreetly as possible, and someone had just pointed out the guy with the camera to me. The moment I saw him pointing his camera at my daughter (who was working out how to get her skirt on over wet knickers) I muttered something to my husband and walked very fast at the guy with the camera, to block his view of my daughter.

I'm sure someone will ask why we didn't dress her somewhere private? There were no changing rooms, and there was an enormous line of people waiting for the toilets. We had no towels so we dressed her as discreetly as we could in the circumstances. We made sure that at no point was she naked.

Those who think it is fine for someone to video a child at a pool... is it also fine for them to video the child getting dressed? Or does that start to seem slightly weird.

I'm not really interested in the legalities of it - I'm more interested in whether it is completely unsuspicious for a man to video a child getting dressed?

I think it was the fact that I actually saw him videoing my daughter getting dressed that was what made me really angry. I wasn't as angry before - maybe because I hadn't actually seen him videoing her and was at that point going on what two people had just told me, and at that point he had not yet admitted to us that he had videoed her for half an hour, so I could still illogically hope that he had not really done it.

But the sight of a man pointing a camera at my daughter while she put on her clothes was what made me feel sick.

Can someone give me a good, innocent reason why a man would video a 7 year old getting dressed?

E3only

Something has changed the way I am lookin at this - - - -

This is from the thread opener:
It's hot so we went to Boston Common where there's a huge paddling pool.
It was full of kids in either underwear or swimsuits.

This is from your latest post :
We had no towels so we dressed her as discreetly as we could in the
circumstances. We made sure that at no point was she naked.

Probably none of my business to ask but exacty why did you not have towels
when you know you were visiting a common & the kids will enjoy the pool??

Just changes the way I look at it. It's not so much what you did but the
way I have been thinking of the situation. By no means I am defending the
guy, but by not having a simple thing as a towel are you not inviting trouble?
Surely that does not change anything that man did however was it a responsible
thing to do when visiting a paddling pool at a common and knowing the kids
would love a paddle ?

Regardless - surely kids should be able to be just that and enjoy and not
being perved at....

Tracym

You are a riot - my vehemently defending just what? Ask you for a source.

Yeah, libel laws are different. That's talking about what the media can publish. They could take your picture all they like however - they just can't publish it. Actually, they can legally publish it I think - the differences is if sued (civil court I believe) for libel - the average individual would win, and the celebrityy wouldn't.

Same site also says:

"There is no actual language in the Constitution that gives Americans the right to privacy; indeed, there is no Amendment purporting to give Americans such a right."

Sorry, I've spent enough time on that one. Although you wish it different, you've been told by different people and different sources quoted - photography is legal in public places, even if you don't like it.

If you're trying to convince me the law should change - I don't agree and I'm not going to.

So I'm done arguing this one with you

nethead

My assumption is Kins and family were on vacation in Boston, they'd gone to the common and found there to be a kids wadding pool there. So as it was hot their DD had wanted to make use of the pool. It happened spontaneously, not having local knowledge they didn't known beforehand about the pool so were unprepared with regards to towels etc.

Ray

340 post about a non situation is pretty stupid ...

kins

Yes that's exactly what happened.

We actually intended to go to the public gardens and ride the swan boats if they're still there (remember Make Way for Ducklings?) but we passed the wading pool on the way and the children wanted to go there instead.

I wasn't sure if the children would offend anyone by going in in their underwear, but lots of other children already were doing so, so we sent ours in too.

It seems a bit ironic now that I was worried that we would offend someone else...

RoadWarriorFromLP

This is precisely the response I expected, which I why I didn't bother providing a link in the first place. When you do receive a cite, instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of it and correcting your previous misstatements, you offer some poorly constructed "rebuttal" that totally misses the point of what was said.

Let's repeat -- you've stated on this thread that public figures (in your case, celebrities) and private citizens are not subject to different privacy protections. Your statements in this regard are absolutely factually incorrect.

But instead of simply recognizing your error, an error based your lack of knowledge of almost two centuries of case law and subsequent statute, you instead provide a "rebuttal" that shows that you didn't understand a link that provided about the simplest explanation of the subject that I could find.

There isn't much point in providing you with new facts if you won't even make an effort to comprehend them. Why attempt to educate you if you clearly don't want to be educated?

MsElui

so if im happy to let them sit in front of a pool full of people in their undies - but I should be worried if its taped. Like I said- he cant hurt my kids by looking so whats the difference between looking, a photo or a video in terms of harm to my kids? If he alters the photo/video somehow to make it improper to get his jollies (im thinking putting a different body on the childs head) then again - how exactly does that hurt my child? Its all in the chaps mind and has no impact on me or my kids. It may be creepy but its his problem not mine.

Rete

A very rational attitude. You expressed exactly what I was thinking but failed to post. Thank you for being the writer for some of us who were caught looking at trees instead of viewing the forest.