Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LilJonPaulSartre t1_j8sea4y wrote

Reply to comment by BigLeagueBanker69 in Metro Center vloggers by GirlWithOnei

The First Amendment might take issue with this proposal. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Full stop. This is decided law. And for good reason! Prohibiting filming in public is like a fascist's/cop's/corrupt politician's wet dream.

In a city like DC, you should always assume you're in someone's photo or video. Not to mention that we're probably one of the most surveilled cities in the country. You're always on video. It's very unlikely that we're going to legislate a limit on First Amendment protections. Hell, we've decided that the First Amendment's definition is so broad, even corporate money is speech, so...

The other parts of this dude's behavior should be (and probably are) illegal, but you seem like you're focused on the wrong thing.

6

BigLeagueBanker69 t1_j8sf5jt wrote

Understood. I think the key part that I have a problem with is not the recording part. I'm totally fine being on surveillance cam, or merely one body in a crowd if someone is taking a picture/video of a street, public park, crowded bar, etc.

What pisses me off to no end is when someone is explicitly filming your face, speech, mannerisms and interactions without consent, then posting it on their own social platform for views/clicks/likes/ad revenue/etc. That's the part where it feels like MY likeness is being used to promote YOUR social media channel, without my consent. I feel like there are some more nuanced laws about this, no? It certainly doesn't stop anyone though. Just a pet peeve of mine because it's so lame. Like, film yourself if you want to use the footage to promote YOUR shit.

5

LilJonPaulSartre t1_j8uh0gs wrote

It bothers me, too. I'm a photographer and while I was taking long exposures on medium format film of the Tidal Basin, two teenagers filmed me and insinuated I was a creep because my camera "is big" (I had a long lens on). I'm sure it went on a tiktok or IG story or something. That kind of sucks. But it's also kind of unavoidable. People are going to be assholes whether it's filmed or not. I do think we could do a better job of preventing malicious use of a private/non-public figure's likenesses. Just don't think we can actually do that until the likeness is used maliciously. It can't be done by preventing the filming in the first place.

2

Surefinewhatever1111 t1_j8tc5nn wrote

People who confuse the first amendment with the requirements to get a release when using something for pecuniary purposes are absolutely wild to me.

1