I don't know all the laws but surely it's not legal to make prurient videos of thirteen-year-olds as he was apparently doing (I admire what she did but I wish she'd been able to alert or involve them as well). Given the number of views, I think the court of public opinion will take care of this guy, whether or not he broke any laws.
It's not illegal to film anyone at any age on public property whether it be a cell phone aimed at kids or a drone creeping above a beach getting swimsuit shots. Gross, absolutely. Morally wrong, sure. If this guy wanted to stop being pursued by her he could've stopped in his place and put in a harassment call to the police. But he didn't because he was most likely guilty of being a creep.
The linked statute refers to photographing parts of the body that are covered by clothing, and also has the clause, "… when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed …".
I don't think "walking down Newbury Street" is a venue where one has any expectation of privacy. But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer.
This was a few years back and was quite the talk on UHub, "such place" includes the MBTA now. Going by the same expansive defition it wouldn't suprise me if Newbury is also a public yet private place.
the guy or guys like him try to make harrassment charges against women who stick up for themselves. I'm really just curious how the court would decide with something similar. I'd have no problem being charged and convicted of harrassment in this case. The guy is dirtbag creep especially filming "clothed" intimate areas of women and CHILDREN. Just because something isn't on the books, doesn't make it ok. Like someone said, the court of public opinion will get this guy.
AFAIK, minors have no extra expectation of privacy when out in public, and if no laws were broken (e.g. this is not a case of upskirting), perhaps it's the woman who should be investigated for smearing the guy's reputation.
is why she didn't film him while he was allegedly filming any one of these numerous people? She presents no evidence of anything other than him saying "Why do you think I would need your permission?" in response to being accused of filming people in public without their permission.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with an aspiring musician putting out a new music video and looking for publicity.
and that she destroyed his reputation wrongly, then she'd better become famous and wealthy, because she'll be paying off his mortgage and putting his kids through college.
When will kids learn to let the legal system do its job.
What does that even mean? Creeper is all in someone else's head. Apart from what he supposedly did how is he a creeper? He's not dressed shabbily. Casual work attire. He's wearing shades cause it was a hot sunny day. Fat? He's on the husky side but less of stature than many women in the city.
Guy didn't even curse or anything. He's the proverbial nice guy women say they want. Say they want.
Yes--that's the "nice guy" we all want--the one shuffling guiltily away after getting busted filming teenagers' asses for their solitary viewing pleasure. I'm sure you're right--all the ladies are putting that in their dating profiles "must love puppies, long walks on the beach, and creeping strangers."
"Technically it is not illegal. It is perfectly leagal [sic] to film a clothed woman," Dillan pointed out. "But does it make it right when you're zooming in crotch and asses? No it does not."
Dillan said she hopes that someone can identify the man so police can pursue their investigation. "My second hope is that this video encourages other young women stand up for themselves."
So, Jase, you admit that no law was broken yet you want the police to pursue the guy? Without any video evidence of the alleged offense, maybe he should have you (and Cosmo) investigated for slander.
is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Men can do what that women can't now? The issue that we're discussing here is this: This lady starts following this man around alleging that he is taking videos / or pictures or people in public. She can't prove this fact, despite her saying she watched him do it for some considerable amount of time. She then posts it online to publicly shame and possibly slander the individual.
The only way you could say that men can do it and women can not in this case, would be, lets say, if he were taking pictures or videos of women (legally) and then posting them on facebook saying "Hey check this slut out." Just because he says it doesn't make it true, especially with no evidence to back it up.
We're not talking at all about a man's right to film in public versus a women's. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place, creepy or not, or whether you like it or not.
So, what, you're ignorant and proud? That's all I'm getting out of your "well, here's my excuse for why I won't respond congruently to the discussion."
Look up the big-ass debates between freed-blacks and their opponents. The whole "well, we'll just be lowering out intelligence by listening to YOU folk" argument get a lot of play there too.
How can anyone be sure that he was actually filming and not just using the view finder? Maybe he just got this camera as was testing out the zoom. If there are women walking around, chances are that a guy will test out the zoom in this way. He could have not noticed that he was zooming on underage girls if he was just looking through the view finder.
I am not trying to defend the guy because he could just be a run of the mill creep, but nothing he did was illegal. Stuff like this makes me very uncomfortable.
I hear you but boy...he comes off as 100% guilty. If he were er...adjusting his viewfinder, don't you think his response would have been completely different?
What is the appropriate reaction then to a crazed woman following you down the street and cursing at you, recording the interaction? Please let us know.
She is "harassing him" and "damaging his reputation".
Meanwhile, you are doing this in such a way that you could easily be considered to be a "crazed commentator" trying to "damage her reputation" while "on a witch hunt".
Your assumptions are pretty transparent here. You are not coming off as a civil libertarian, either, given your double standards.
They were both within their rights to take video. She is well within her rights to confront him. End of story.
I never used the word "harass". And, ok, fine, let me rephrase my above comment:
What is the appropriate reaction then to a woman following you down the street and cursing at you, recording the interaction? Please let us know.
[quote]They were both within their rights to take video. She is well within her rights to confront him. End of story.[/quote]
Completely agreed. But Ms. Dillan went beyond recording him. She went to the media and called him out as a sexual predator, and the various media outlets (who are equally complicit in any reputation smearing) went right along with it.
You and Zootag are publically declaring her to be an insane woman who is "damaging his reputation", as if she has no right to go after him. Also calling her many other unpleasant things for daring to challenge his behavior. And yet, your accusations are also "smearing her reputation" by your own definitions of such.
Which I don't find to be "smearing" at all, actually. However, I do find your conditional inconsistencies to be glaring.
Never called her insane. But she made a public accusation against this guy with no proof. This isn't a matter of he's in public with no right to privacy. The issue is "Hey world, check out this asshole creep", without actually providing any sort of evidence that he is in fact an asshole creep.
The guy changes directions like 3 times and at first pretends to look at his phone. I'd say most people who didn't do anything would not walk away and wander aimlessly like this guy appeared to.
Watch the video and tell me that's how you'd react. There's no surprise, no outrage--just nervous, guilty avoidance. He knows he got nailed. And if it weren't true then he could dispel the whole thing almost instantly by turning over his camera which he very clearly doesn't want to do. If I'd been mistakenly accused of filming my neighbor taking a shower instead of the fascinating nesting habits of the bluejay family on his windowsill, the first thing I'd do would be to say "oh no--see here? I was filming this mother bluejay--see the egg hatching here?" Case closed.
Walk down the street and randomly ask strangers to see the pictures on their phone and see how that works out for you. Guilty or innocent nobody has to show you their pictures just because you ask.
Right. Turning over your $1,000 camera or phone or whatever to an individual swearing at you and following you down the street is always the prudent course of action. Anyone who doesn't react this way is clearly guilty of something.
Then you might need to tweak your basic human skills. That said, if he's innocent, no need to turn over his camera. Ffs--hold it up so she can film it. Call Channel 5 or go on Reddit and show the time stamped footage showing you...innocently adjusting your viewfinder. Otherwise you're just confirming what your actions and body language convey--total guilt.
Maybe he just got this camera as was testing out the zoom. If there are women walking around, chances are that a guy will test out the zoom in this way.
Kidding, right? Do you seriously think a normal man would "test out the zoom" on his camera by zooming in on women's crotches? Not, for example, some interesting architectural feature across the way, or a storefront, or a tree down the block? Anyone who would "test out the zoom" in that way is seriously damaged goods.
Because it's not possible she hoped secretly filmed shots of a teenaged girl's crotch by a grown man illegal and she only found out it wasn't after asking te police to pursue the guy first?
By the way, something has to be untrue to be considered slander.
Whether it's legal or not right now isn't as important as whether it's appropriate or not. I don't want to beat the dead Privacy Horse too much but as computers continue to enter every space of our lives, and as lenses become smaller, and software becomes more accurate, we may all wish for there to be legal protections against unlicensed public surveillance. Just because young women are the most obvious victims now doesn't mean that you and I won't become victims to it in the future. Consider the growing talk around using biometrics to verify identities. You might come to consider digital video recordings of your body within a certain resolution threshold to be rather intimate, and not within the Public Domain. But clearly we couldn't call for an immediate end to video recording in public spaces. The solution is going to be drawn out and nuanced. This is a privacy discussion that's harder to have than one about NSA personal data collection because most of the victims now are good looking women.
The solution is going to be drawn out and nuanced.
The solution is going to be for people to act like civilized human beings who don't need an explicit, iron-clad law to prevent them from following every antisocial impulse.
Before publicly shaming someone, she really needed to have video showing him doing what she claimed rather than just video following him around like a nutter. If he did do what she claimed, he did behave creepy for sure, but that's still not illegal like somebody wanking on the T.
Second, If you look at her Facebook page, you will see her claim a former boyfriend tried to kill her in 2005, so she has been traumatized and is still dealing / discussing.
Her music career necessitates self-promotion, so that invites skepticism. Its one thing to tell some guy he is a creep, another to follow the guy back and forth around the street yelling at him. Another level to have your phone out simulating that you are recording him. Another to actually record him. Another to post it to your Facebook page. Another for it to be marked Public, not just for Friends. Then, to contact/agree for an interview/use by Cosmo starts to really look like attention seeking at someone else's expense.
Cosmo? Really? "25 Ways to get Hot Guys to notice you!" Cosmo? That Cosmo, which exploits young impressionable women to sell magazines and advertising aimed at them?
[more edit: This also seems derivative of the viral video of the woman walking NYC streets receiving unsolicited verbal attention. Those guys got busted in the act but weren't confronted. Plenty of other videos were made of guys getting busted and confronted. This one is a guy not getting caught in the act, just confronted]
Comments
Turn about
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:30am
... is fair play.
However, she was in public, as was he. Creepiness, yes, but no violation of privacy in either case.
Good on her for returning the favor and making him uncomfortable, though
Except that there were minors involved apparently.
By Sally
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:42am
I don't know all the laws but surely it's not legal to make prurient videos of thirteen-year-olds as he was apparently doing (I admire what she did but I wish she'd been able to alert or involve them as well). Given the number of views, I think the court of public opinion will take care of this guy, whether or not he broke any laws.
Public property
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:00am
It's not illegal to film anyone at any age on public property whether it be a cell phone aimed at kids or a drone creeping above a beach getting swimsuit shots. Gross, absolutely. Morally wrong, sure. If this guy wanted to stop being pursued by her he could've stopped in his place and put in a harassment call to the police. But he didn't because he was most likely guilty of being a creep.
this is not actually completely true
By Matthew Miller
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:24pm
Mass General Laws Chapter 272, Section 105
The linked statute refers to
By Saul
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:28pm
The linked statute refers to photographing parts of the body that are covered by clothing, and also has the clause, "… when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed …".
I don't think "walking down Newbury Street" is a venue where one has any expectation of privacy. But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer.
This was a few years back and
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:51pm
This was a few years back and was quite the talk on UHub, "such place" includes the MBTA now. Going by the same expansive defition it wouldn't suprise me if Newbury is also a public yet private place.
Yes.
By Saul
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 2:24pm
Yes.
http://www.universalhub.com/2014/t-alert-people-up...
Except Ms. Dillan doesn't accuse the guy of upskirting, but of photographing clothed parts of women.
I'd like to see...
By Sharon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 3:10pm
the guy or guys like him try to make harrassment charges against women who stick up for themselves. I'm really just curious how the court would decide with something similar. I'd have no problem being charged and convicted of harrassment in this case. The guy is dirtbag creep especially filming "clothed" intimate areas of women and CHILDREN. Just because something isn't on the books, doesn't make it ok. Like someone said, the court of public opinion will get this guy.
Better call Saul
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:29pm
n/t.
minors
By Saul
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:07am
AFAIK, minors have no extra expectation of privacy when out in public, and if no laws were broken (e.g. this is not a case of upskirting), perhaps it's the woman who should be investigated for smearing the guy's reputation.
Smearing his reputation?
By itchy
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:10am
Or merely filming him out in public being an asshole.
There is no special protection rule for the "reputations" of sleazy aggro guys being sleazy and aggro in public, dude.
She didn't film him being an asshole
By zetag
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:45am
She filmed him walking around alleging that he is an asshole, huge difference there.
He did kinda admit it...
By Anna
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:53pm
There's no reason to say it's legal for him to film them unless he filmed them.
yuh
By Sharon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 3:11pm
poor him. We don't even know his name.
Which is kind of amazing. Why
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 8:35pm
Which is kind of amazing. Why has the Internets failed us?
What I wonder
By zetag
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:54am
is why she didn't film him while he was allegedly filming any one of these numerous people? She presents no evidence of anything other than him saying "Why do you think I would need your permission?" in response to being accused of filming people in public without their permission.
I'm sure this has nothing to do with an aspiring musician putting out a new music video and looking for publicity.
If only she knew in advance
By section77
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:01am
Her reaction time to discovering the creeper was a little slow. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
Doesn't mean it happened either
By zetag
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:40am
You'd think we, as an internet community, would have learned our lesson on one sided witch hunts by now.
If it turns out he's innocent
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:05am
and that she destroyed his reputation wrongly, then she'd better become famous and wealthy, because she'll be paying off his mortgage and putting his kids through college.
When will kids learn to let the legal system do its job.
Nope
By itchy
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:39am
The law doesn't work that way, dearie.
Yes
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:15pm
it sure does, in this country.
By your own definitions
By itchy
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:56am
You and Saul are smearing her reputation by alleging that her zeal is actionable.
Think about that for just a minute. Let it sink in.
More "men have rights that women don't, men lack responsibility while women own it" nonsense.
It's not a sexist thing
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:23pm
It's a going public with allegations that are huge enough to be handled by the professionals who are trained and paid to handle them thing.
And yet..
By lbb
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 2:39pm
And yet upthread we have the allegation that he did nothing illegal. If it's not illegal, how can it be "huge"?
You can't have it both ways, sorry anon, and it IS a sexist thing when you try to.
He basically said it was fine for him to film them.
By Anna
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:54pm
So he probably filmed them.
That's Awesome
By section77
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 10:58am
Fat, lonely creeps are always quick to cite the whole "no expectation of privacy in public" thing. It's the closest thing they have to a religion.
"Fat, lonely creeps"
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:37am
"Fat, lonely creeps are always quick to cite..."
What does his weight have to do with it? If a woman, however guilty, was described this way all hell would break loose.
"Guys, don't talk about the
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 2:43pm
"Guys, don't talk about the actual event happening right now, let's all get upset about a hypothetical even that hasn't happened!"
You ever consider just NOT be a creeper? It might work out to your benefit!
What does that even mean?
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 8:40pm
What does that even mean? Creeper is all in someone else's head. Apart from what he supposedly did how is he a creeper? He's not dressed shabbily. Casual work attire. He's wearing shades cause it was a hot sunny day. Fat? He's on the husky side but less of stature than many women in the city.
Guy didn't even curse or anything. He's the proverbial nice guy women say they want. Say they want.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
By Sally
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 8:01am
Yes--that's the "nice guy" we all want--the one shuffling guiltily away after getting busted filming teenagers' asses for their solitary viewing pleasure. I'm sure you're right--all the ladies are putting that in their dating profiles "must love puppies, long walks on the beach, and creeping strangers."
legality
By Saul
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:12am
From the linked Cosmo article.
So, Jase, you admit that no law was broken yet you want the police to pursue the guy? Without any video evidence of the alleged offense, maybe he should have you (and Cosmo) investigated for slander.
Mansplaining
By itchy
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:25am
Woman filming man acting like a jerk in public = "smearing his reputation"
Man filming girls and women in public = "HIS inalienable right!"
Mansplaining and whining much? Check your privilege, please.
What you've just said
By zetag
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:43am
is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Poor baby
By itchy
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:46am
Sorry if I don't buy the "men can do it, but women better not or else" nonsense that you and saul are spewing here.
Maybe because grownups know better?
Grownups apparently don't know what they're even arguing about
By zetag
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:15pm
Men can do what that women can't now? The issue that we're discussing here is this: This lady starts following this man around alleging that he is taking videos / or pictures or people in public. She can't prove this fact, despite her saying she watched him do it for some considerable amount of time. She then posts it online to publicly shame and possibly slander the individual.
The only way you could say that men can do it and women can not in this case, would be, lets say, if he were taking pictures or videos of women (legally) and then posting them on facebook saying "Hey check this slut out." Just because he says it doesn't make it true, especially with no evidence to back it up.
We're not talking at all about a man's right to film in public versus a women's. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place, creepy or not, or whether you like it or not.
His camera would prove it
By lbb
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 2:41pm
His camera would prove it one way or the other, or would have. You all about that?
So
By zetag
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 2:55pm
you think he should have just turned his camera over to her so she could have seen his pictures?
So, what, you're ignorant and
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 2:45pm
So, what, you're ignorant and proud? That's all I'm getting out of your "well, here's my excuse for why I won't respond congruently to the discussion."
Look up the big-ass debates between freed-blacks and their opponents. The whole "well, we'll just be lowering out intelligence by listening to YOU folk" argument get a lot of play there too.
Ok, a simple wrong would have
By Lmo
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 3:02pm
Ok, a simple wrong would have done just fine, but uh......
Creepers Unite! Pedofiles
By section77
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:27am
Creepers Unite! Pedofiles have rights too!
They may be terrible human beings
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:30pm
but yes, creepers and pedophiles do indeed have rights. Indeed, that they do have rights is part of what makes America great.
something is not right about this..
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:32am
How can anyone be sure that he was actually filming and not just using the view finder? Maybe he just got this camera as was testing out the zoom. If there are women walking around, chances are that a guy will test out the zoom in this way. He could have not noticed that he was zooming on underage girls if he was just looking through the view finder.
I am not trying to defend the guy because he could just be a run of the mill creep, but nothing he did was illegal. Stuff like this makes me very uncomfortable.
His reaction pretty much says it all.
By Sally
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:58am
I hear you but boy...he comes off as 100% guilty. If he were er...adjusting his viewfinder, don't you think his response would have been completely different?
What?
By Saul
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:06pm
What is the appropriate reaction then to a crazed woman following you down the street and cursing at you, recording the interaction? Please let us know.
Saul, reread your posts
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:21pm
She's a "crazed woman"
She is "harassing him" and "damaging his reputation".
Meanwhile, you are doing this in such a way that you could easily be considered to be a "crazed commentator" trying to "damage her reputation" while "on a witch hunt".
Your assumptions are pretty transparent here. You are not coming off as a civil libertarian, either, given your double standards.
They were both within their rights to take video. She is well within her rights to confront him. End of story.
She made it public
By zetag
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:31pm
She intentionally put herself in the spot light here, there is a difference.
He was out in public.
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:36pm
He intentionally went out in public. There is no difference.
I never used the word "harass
By Saul
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:33pm
I never used the word "harass". And, ok, fine, let me rephrase my above comment:
What is the appropriate reaction then to a woman following you down the street and cursing at you, recording the interaction? Please let us know.
[quote]They were both within their rights to take video. She is well within her rights to confront him. End of story.[/quote]
Completely agreed. But Ms. Dillan went beyond recording him. She went to the media and called him out as a sexual predator, and the various media outlets (who are equally complicit in any reputation smearing) went right along with it.
Meanwhile
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:38pm
You and Zootag are publically declaring her to be an insane woman who is "damaging his reputation", as if she has no right to go after him. Also calling her many other unpleasant things for daring to challenge his behavior. And yet, your accusations are also "smearing her reputation" by your own definitions of such.
Which I don't find to be "smearing" at all, actually. However, I do find your conditional inconsistencies to be glaring.
Nope
By zetag
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:43pm
Never called her insane. But she made a public accusation against this guy with no proof. This isn't a matter of he's in public with no right to privacy. The issue is "Hey world, check out this asshole creep", without actually providing any sort of evidence that he is in fact an asshole creep.
Check your inconsistencies
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:04pm
Note how many times that you are engaging in the same behaviors which you are decrying in her actions.
Again, the similarity is striking, and the differences in the way you label them are also striking.
Sail
By Pete Nice
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:32pm
The guy changes directions like 3 times and at first pretends to look at his phone. I'd say most people who didn't do anything would not walk away and wander aimlessly like this guy appeared to.
You miss that he was being
By anon
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:07pm
You miss that he was being followed. He could have been changing directions to see if he could shake her off.
Where is supposed to walk to anyways if he was already near his destination and only walking away from this woman?
Yea your right.
By Pete Nice
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:23pm
Nothing suspicious or telling about how he acted there.
What is this page, the twilight zone or something. Geeze.
This.
By Sally
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:35pm
Watch the video and tell me that's how you'd react. There's no surprise, no outrage--just nervous, guilty avoidance. He knows he got nailed. And if it weren't true then he could dispel the whole thing almost instantly by turning over his camera which he very clearly doesn't want to do. If I'd been mistakenly accused of filming my neighbor taking a shower instead of the fascinating nesting habits of the bluejay family on his windowsill, the first thing I'd do would be to say "oh no--see here? I was filming this mother bluejay--see the egg hatching here?" Case closed.
Go outside
By zetag
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:41pm
Walk down the street and randomly ask strangers to see the pictures on their phone and see how that works out for you. Guilty or innocent nobody has to show you their pictures just because you ask.
Really?
By Saul
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:47pm
Right. Turning over your $1,000 camera or phone or whatever to an individual swearing at you and following you down the street is always the prudent course of action. Anyone who doesn't react this way is clearly guilty of something.
Saul and Zetag.
By Pete Nice
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:59pm
Let me ask you this. If you had to put a number on it (%) what would you say the chances are that this guy was doing what he was accused of doing?
I say 96% chance he was taking photos of girls buts, 4% chance he was just adjusting his phone.
Now you guys: go.......
You weren't there
By zetag
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 2:09pm
And neither were we. She also doesn't post any sort of proof of her accusations.
I'm just still waiting here for SG to point out all my "inconsistencies"....
I know we weren't there.
By Pete Nice
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 2:15pm
I'm just curious, what do you think happened there? I understand there are several issues here, but one of them is about reading this mans reaction.
If you don't think this guy acted guilty as hell
By Sally
Sat, 10/31/2015 - 8:08am
Then you might need to tweak your basic human skills. That said, if he's innocent, no need to turn over his camera. Ffs--hold it up so she can film it. Call Channel 5 or go on Reddit and show the time stamped footage showing you...innocently adjusting your viewfinder. Otherwise you're just confirming what your actions and body language convey--total guilt.
...kidding, right?
By lbb
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 2:43pm
Kidding, right? Do you seriously think a normal man would "test out the zoom" on his camera by zooming in on women's crotches? Not, for example, some interesting architectural feature across the way, or a storefront, or a tree down the block? Anyone who would "test out the zoom" in that way is seriously damaged goods.
Ugh
By wp1648
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:38am
Because it's not possible she hoped secretly filmed shots of a teenaged girl's crotch by a grown man illegal and she only found out it wasn't after asking te police to pursue the guy first?
By the way, something has to be untrue to be considered slander.
Your lack of thought or logic shows.
This is a good thing
By Matt
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:29am
Whether it's legal or not right now isn't as important as whether it's appropriate or not. I don't want to beat the dead Privacy Horse too much but as computers continue to enter every space of our lives, and as lenses become smaller, and software becomes more accurate, we may all wish for there to be legal protections against unlicensed public surveillance. Just because young women are the most obvious victims now doesn't mean that you and I won't become victims to it in the future. Consider the growing talk around using biometrics to verify identities. You might come to consider digital video recordings of your body within a certain resolution threshold to be rather intimate, and not within the Public Domain. But clearly we couldn't call for an immediate end to video recording in public spaces. The solution is going to be drawn out and nuanced. This is a privacy discussion that's harder to have than one about NSA personal data collection because most of the victims now are good looking women.
Thanks for posting this news item, adamg.
The solution
By lbb
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 2:45pm
The solution is going to be for people to act like civilized human beings who don't need an explicit, iron-clad law to prevent them from following every antisocial impulse.
Direct Link To Video / Article, Without Going Through Facebook
By Elmer
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 11:32am
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a48507/b...
Off her meds?
By Markk02474
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:44pm
Before publicly shaming someone, she really needed to have video showing him doing what she claimed rather than just video following him around like a nutter. If he did do what she claimed, he did behave creepy for sure, but that's still not illegal like somebody wanking on the T.
Second, If you look at her Facebook page, you will see her claim a former boyfriend tried to kill her in 2005, so she has been traumatized and is still dealing / discussing.
Her music career necessitates self-promotion, so that invites skepticism. Its one thing to tell some guy he is a creep, another to follow the guy back and forth around the street yelling at him. Another level to have your phone out simulating that you are recording him. Another to actually record him. Another to post it to your Facebook page. Another for it to be marked Public, not just for Friends. Then, to contact/agree for an interview/use by Cosmo starts to really look like attention seeking at someone else's expense.
Cosmo? Really? "25 Ways to get Hot Guys to notice you!" Cosmo? That Cosmo, which exploits young impressionable women to sell magazines and advertising aimed at them?
[more edit: This also seems derivative of the viral video of the woman walking NYC streets receiving unsolicited verbal attention. Those guys got busted in the act but weren't confronted. Plenty of other videos were made of guys getting busted and confronted. This one is a guy not getting caught in the act, just confronted]
You are?
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:33pm
Better call your doctor, then. Maybe get a refill or discuss the side effects that are bothering you.
Otherwise, keep your sexist and ableist "prescriptions" to yourself.
Nope
By zetag
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 12:55pm
You're still wrong.
Take off the Fedora
By SwirlyGrrl
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 1:02pm
And go back and read your own comments.
Pages
Add comment