(July 31, 2010 at 10:13 pm)Dotard Wrote: If I go to the mall wearing skin tight speedo briefs, a tinfoil hat, and nothing else, then start doing a little kooky-dance and somebody takes a photo or video of it and posts it on youtube, do I have the right to sue him/her? Should they be arrested and convicted?One always has the right to sue. Whether or not one wins, that is matter up to the courts.
Now reasonably, it is obvious by your actions in public, that the goodwill or implied intention by your very actions imply that you wish the attention of all, including a camera crew.
Quote:Would anybody be justified in 'victim blaming' if they claimed it was my fault that I got filmed because I decided to do a kooky-dance while wearing nothing but a speedo brief and a tinfoil hat?If you seriously think that you can make an extreme example in a relative world and try to even link it past a remote doubt to this, you've got another thing going.
What if you were dancing at a club, and someone went over and pants'ed you? Hm? Would they have the right, or anyone else for that matter, to film and perhaps even profit from your misfortune?
I already have the answer - No. For the very same reason snuff films and acts of cruelty are illegal to manufacture/profit from (the real mccoy, not the fakey/special fx stuff that we use in movies) in this country.
The crux of the issue is, is it allowed to profit from a crime done to another, possibly by encouraging it passively or actively? I say no. The laws regarding criminality in the vein of murder and torture say no. It's a shame that a trial of our peers seems ignorant of that fact. It is undeniable.
The film crew could have cut out that section, but their action of leaving it in demonstrates, by virtue of post processing, a decision to keep and sell that footage as part of their product.
Privacy issues aside, they are directly profiting from a crime that they possibly encouraged.
