Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
What has hindered you to read the part where I continued with
...?
|
What's hindered me is that it's not a valid comparison. The woman in this story can have pictures of her spread to every man, woman and child on Earth without telling her, because she doesn't need to be told, because she was in public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
No. In both cases it is the exposure of somebody to a wide public that has nbot been present in the incident/the shoot, nor has the victim agreed to make these materials public.
|
Her agreement is by virtue of her being in public.
Do you think the person who took this picture had to get the consent of everyone there in order to do so? No. They were in public. They cannot consent to waive a right to privacy that they don't have in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
P.S. It has become common amongst school-teens that porno snippets of their girls get handed around, too. These shots often are taken in the public space, in restaurant toilets, at school, during class travels, and in hotel rooms then. Some even do it without the girls being aware that they are filmed. Some girls get talked into it by saying it would be an "evidence" of their love.
That it is happening outside a private, protected area, does not matter. Morally, handing around such footage withoiut consent of the girl (or her being under 18), is an abuse, and it may even be legally relevant if the shooting itself took place without consent and knowledge of the girl, allowing the girl to sue the offender.
|
Absolutely irrelevant. Child pornography is another subject altogether.
Quote:
|
They also would if they hand around videos of women changing dresses in a shop's dressing cabin. That the shop is outside the privacy of their homes, is meaningless.
|
they would be wrong, but only because a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a changing room. They do not have that expectation in the middle of a crowded shopping mall.