Lady wants to sue mall for falling into fountain while texting

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

but in principle it is the same thing.

It's not the same in principle at all. If you're shooting naked videos of your girlfriend, you're probably in the privacy of your own home. You have an expectation of privacy. Anything that infringes upon it is a violation of your right.

This event occurred in the public space of a shopping mall. She cannot have any expectation of privacy, and therefore cannot demand it from the mall, who I'm sure has signs posted that said that the premises were under CCTV surveillance. She has no rights to any sort of privacy that could have been infringed upon.

You can walk down the street taking pictures of whomever you wish. It's completely legal as it's a public space.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

It's not the same in principle at all. If you're shooting naked videos of your girlfriend, you're probably in the privacy of your own home.

What has hindered you to read the part where I continued with

Originally Posted by Skybird

... and then spreading it in public without telling her

...?

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

What has hindered you to read the part where I continued with

...?

The point is though that there would be an expectation of privacy in the girlfriend video example that doesn't really apply to someone acting foolish in a public place like the middle of a mall.

[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.

If your trouser is blasting open in public and you get shot, or you agree to your friend to have/her photographing you - it makes no difference if the result - the footage - is being made public to amuse the cxrowd without your permssion, and at cost of your reputation.

If you beat a non-consensual women in public, the laws of your country may allow her to sue you. And if you beat her without consent in the privacy of your home instead - that makes no difference for the court then.

[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.

The women in the fountain may have been victim of her own silliness, but bviously she did not give consent to her embarassement being made known to the wide public. The responsible people acted wrong when publishing these videos. 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.

[mookiemookie]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Feuer Frei!]

I mean seriously, let's think about this for a while, how many of you would actually put a hot cup of coffee bewtween your legs and attempt to open it up to put sugar in it?
Without ever thinking that the lid may come off in other ways than you had expected, and that the coffee could spill out and actually burn you?
I know for one i wouldn't.
The arguement for me at least isn't the fact that the coffee is/was brewed at a particular temperature which could burn someone (albeit due to their inability to use reason and common sense in the first place), but that due to a lack of common sense this even went to court.
That surely is the stand out point, certainly for me.
The "the jury would be sympathetic to an old lady's injuries", or "if a coffee can burn you because it's served hot" arguements don't lend much weight to the fact that no common sense was used by the customer to treat the product with care and in a appropriate manner and location.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

Cant see anymone there being mocked or ridiculed.

FYI, if you offend somebody< not in his private home, but in public space, you canjh still be sued by him, in Germany as well as in America. The law says so in both countries. If you get raped in public and not in your priovate home, you can sue the attacker nevertheless. A car accident on a public road is a case for the police, although it is not on private property. If you show somebody obscene gestures in poublic, he may sue you, although you are in no private space.

The woman in the fountain says she feels mocked and ridiculed and embarassed by the video of her mishap being spread in public. The spreading of this vidceo is the issue,. not where her mishap happened. Film her naked in her sleeping room and distribute the video, and it is a casue to sue you. Film her being naked in public by accident, and spread that video against her will or withiout her permnission, and it is exactly the same.

She is not suind becasue she behaved silly and a mishap struck her as a result. She is suing against the video being published to a wide public. Granted, she does not give me the impression to be too bright, and in the interview seems to be somewhat "delayed" in her head , and she probably does not plan to pay her lawyer from her private money only - but still she has a valid point.