RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists"

RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

philosophy -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 2:37:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 A woman can't "expect" a little decorum when she gets out of a car, why would she expect it when there's a door with a keyhole in it? See my point? ....no. Probably because your 'point' is specious. Being on the other side of a locked door is being in a wholly private space. Getting out of a car to go to a club is leaving a semi-private space and moving into a public one. There's no parallel between the two events at all..........to attempt to draw some kind of parallel is tenuous at best.

Loki45 -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 2:38:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth sorry, Vendeval...but this slave is guilty of it...especially at Folsom!!! however, she's hardly an internet nudity virgin...[:)] Be that as it may, if you'd gotten out of the car to look down and see a guy laying on the ground and shooting up your skirt, I highly doubt Merc would be....pleased.

Loki45 -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 2:39:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ....no. Probably because your 'point' is specious. Being on the other side of a locked door is being in a wholly private space. Getting out of a car to go to a club is leaving a semi-private space and moving into a public one. Fine. Then what about the women photographed in their own homes? That's fine?

slaveboyforyou -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 2:40:23 PM)
quote: But both are still privacy violations. And both are against the law, supposedly. You don't have the right to privacy in a public place; that was ruled on in the courts years and years ago. I can walk up down the street taking pictures of whomever or whatever I want.

Loki45 -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 2:42:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: But both are still privacy violations. And both are against the law, supposedly. You don't have the right to privacy in a public place; that was ruled on in the courts years and years ago. I can walk up down the street taking pictures of whomever or whatever I want. "California's voyeurism statute stands out from most by specifically focusing on the individual privacy invasion committed, not the place where that invasion occurred. Specifically, under §647(k)(1) of California's Penal Code: Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person under or through the clothing being worn by that other person, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person and invade the privacy of that other person, under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. By prohibiting the act of recording "under or through the clothing" of the victim, the statute recognizes that a privacy violation may occur in public or private. This statute also abandons traditional notions of privacy and space, and is more in step with technological advances in surveillance systems designed to detect concealed items and eliminate physical barriers."

Mercnbeth -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 2:45:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth sorry, Vendeval...but this slave is guilty of it...especially at Folsom!!! however, she's hardly an internet nudity virgin...[:)] Be that as it may, if you'd gotten out of the car to look down and see a guy laying on the ground and shooting up your skirt, I highly doubt Merc would be....pleased. only because you don't know Him.

Loki45 -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 2:47:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth sorry, Vendeval...but this slave is guilty of it...especially at Folsom!!! however, she's hardly an internet nudity virgin...[:)] Be that as it may, if you'd gotten out of the car to look down and see a guy laying on the ground and shooting up your skirt, I highly doubt Merc would be....pleased. only because you don't know Him. Then perhaps I'll rephrase. If I were out with a girl....friend....girlfriend...whatever and someone did that....at a bare minimum he'd be shopping for a new camera the next day.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 2:50:43 PM)
quote: Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person under or through the clothing being worn by that other person, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person and invade the privacy of that other person, under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy." Note the word "secretly." The papparazzi weren't filming her secretly when she got out of that car. She has cameras in her face all the time. Also, note the phrase "intent to arouse, appeal to, gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person....." You have to prove intent that the photographer was doing it for his own sexual gratification. Sorry, doesn't apply in the example you gave.

Loki45 -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 2:53:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person under or through the clothing being worn by that other person, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person and invade the privacy of that other person, under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy." Note the word "secretly." The papparazzi weren't filming her secretly when she got out of that car. She has cameras in her face all the time. Also, note the phrase "intent to arouse, appeal to, gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person....." You have to prove intent that the photographer was doing it for his own sexual gratification. Sorry, doesn't apply in the example you gave. And once again, it's exactly that way of thinking that leads the photographers to get more and more daring. No one wants to take a stand until they're truly shocked or outraged. Well, I'd say they got people's attention now, don't they? I see this as very similar in nature to debates on various rights. You let it slide and let it slide and let it slide.....those who go down that 'slide' just keep going further and further and further. And voila....keyhole porno!

Vendaval -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 5:16:54 PM)
Well hello there beth, Is that a freshly pressed birthday suit? [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ...But personally, I know no women who go out in public without underwear while wearing short skirts or dresses knowing that cameras will be present.... [sm=wave.gif] sorry, Vendeval...but this slave is guilty of it...especially at Folsom!!! however, she's hardly an internet nudity virgin...[:)]

DomImus -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 6:03:26 PM)
It will not surprise me to ultimately find out that Ms. Andrews was a willing participant in a publicity stunt.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 6:10:53 PM)
quote: And once again, it's exactly that way of thinking that leads the photographers to get more and more daring. No one wants to take a stand until they're truly shocked or outraged. What way of thinking? The law is the law. Laws can't be used broadly; if the behavior isn't specifically outlawed by the law, you can't prosecute someone for it. Papparazzi do go out of their way to get photographs; it's how they make their living. I agree that a lot of them are complete douchebags, but unless they violate the law, they have a right to take their photographs. It's nothing new. Yellow journalism, fluff, and gossip have been with humanity for a long time. quote: You let it slide and let it slide and let it slide.....those who go down that 'slide' just keep going further and further and further. And voila....keyhole porno Slippery slope argument.

Loki45 -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/21/2009 6:19:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou What way of thinking? The law is the law. Laws can't be used broadly; if the behavior isn't specifically outlawed by the law, you can't prosecute someone for it. Papparazzi do go out of their way to get photographs; it's how they make their living. I agree that a lot of them are complete douchebags, but unless they violate the law, they have a right to take their photographs. It's nothing new. Yellow journalism, fluff, and gossip have been with humanity for a long time. The way of thinking that little by little more and more stuff is 'okay.' I am one of those who just feel very strongly about the tabloid trash. I can't stand it. I see commercials for tmz and want to puke. 20 years ago, the celebrities were being followed around, and photographed at stores. 10 years ago (and I'm just throwing out numbers, don't hang on 'em too much) they were being photographed from trees across the street from their own house. Recently, it's "socially acceptable" that they purposely lay on the ground and shoot up a girl's skirt and use that to paint her as some whore. (Well I can tell you, chauvanistic asshole I may be, but I have a lot of female friends and I know for a fact they themselves have gone commando before.....way to many women have at one time or another for that one act to make them a whore.) I was actually wondering when something like this incident was going to happen. Celebrities have been petitioning the government of their respective states now for years for tougher laws against things like this. To my knowledge, the gov has been slow to act and now, we have a key-hole porno of a female sports reporter. I'm wondering what has to happen before these tabloid trash people are sent to jail for their antics. They endanger celebrities, they endanger their kids, they endanger the public, and they don't care about any of it so long as they get the picture. quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou Slippery slope argument. Yes indeedy-feed the needy. You're absolutely right. But it's the same one used by many who argue for/against rights and limits of the law.

WyldHrt -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/22/2009 12:23:57 AM)
quote: Oh wait...they did show Britney with no underwear on, didn't they? Nevermind that the guy had to get at GROUND LEVEL right where the car door opened in order to get the shot. But that's ok, right? Just tabloid stuff...right? Ummm.. could you be more specific? I did a search and came up with a crapload of such "crotch shots" of Britney. Which one are you referring to? BTW, one thing I noticed in the pics of her is that she is usually accompanied by at least one guy, possibly a bodyguard. Did said guy(s) or anyone else NOT else notice some dude laying on the ground (as per a later post you made) with a camera? Did she not see this guy laying on the ground when she opened the door? [8\|] I really don't see the situation as being the same as someone being unknowingly photographed either in their home or in a hotel room. Male or female, that is well beyond the pale. That said, I detest the papparazzi and really can't understand why anyone, let alone millions of people, really care what happens in some celebrity's personal life. As an aside, Loki, your first 2 posts and part of the third were rather all about "but no one cares if it happens to a MAN". LC was quite correct in citing the case of Max Mosely in response. I really don't blame those who see your later posts as backpeddaling.

Loki45 -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/22/2009 12:45:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt Ummm.. could you be more specific? I did a search and came up with a crapload of such "crotch shots" of Britney. Which one are you referring to? BTW, one thing I noticed in the pics of her is that she is usually accompanied by at least one guy, possibly a bodyguard. Did said guy(s) or anyone else NOT else notice some dude laying on the ground (as per a later post you made) with a camera? Did she not see this guy laying on the ground when she opened the door? [8\|] I really don't see the situation as being the same as someone being unknowingly photographed either in their home or in a hotel room. Male or female, that is well beyond the pale. They're not the exact same, no. But they are representative of a declining trend as I pointed out in other posts. Apparently it's "ok" to try and catch female actresses sunbathing in the 'hopes' of catching them nude. The next logical step (in the mind of the garbage papparazzi) is to try and peek through....whatever they can. My point is that the general public's apathy toward the other incidents helped lead to this one. Had the photographer in the Britney incident been charged with something......had the papparazzi trying to sneak sunbathing pics been charged.....perhaps what happened to Erin Andrews wouldn't have happened. We'll never know though because we waited until now to draw the line in the sand. quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt As an aside, Loki, your first 2 posts and part of the third were rather all about "but no one cares if it happens to a MAN". LC was quite correct in citing the case of Max Mosely in response. I really don't blame those who see your later posts as backpeddaling. I never mentioned any take on the correctness or incorrectness of the Max Mosely reference. I just don't know who he is, so I asked. And it's not backpeddaling when I amend my statement on my own. I didn't sit there denying that's what I mean in the first posts. I corrected myself. I know damned well what I mean in the first 2 posts and I have no interest in denying it. I'm a chauvanistic asshole who's seen way too many times how what happens to a man is fine and what happens to a woman is attrocious. But that's for another thread entirely. In this case I did correct myself before the end of the first page of posts because, as I came to realize the OP incident is not a man/woman thing. It's a thing with the papparazzi and the lengths the general public has let them go to get what most of us really shouldn't give a rat's ass about.

pixidustpet -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/22/2009 1:23:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: pixidustpet its the expectation of privacy. britney spears KNOWS that as a "celebrity", there are going to be people taking photos of whatever she is (or isnt) wearing. and her mama should have showed her YEARS ago how to get in and out of a car gracefully. This is exactly the mindset that led to the keyhole video. A woman can't "expect" a little decorum when she gets out of a car, why would she expect it when there's a door with a keyhole in it? See my point? It's the increasing lengths to which so-called journalists will go to get the next big 'thing' in the media. Women celebrities can't sunbathe in their own fucking back yard without tabloid freaks in the trees across the street. This incident is the next logical (albeit highly illegal) step. Why can someone expect privacy in a hotel room when they can't expect it in their own home? Edited because apparently when typing fast, I don't know how to spell 'sunbathe.' its not the same at all. and if you think that through, you know it. if there is a tree on the other side of the wall where i am sunbathing, you betcha there is always that offchance that someone is going to make a fool of himself climbing it....no matter how "private" we think our yard is. if i am using a tanning bed in my own home, with the doors and windows shut, i have an expectation that when i turn my head, there will be no one there. there are laws about peeping toms, you know (no matter their gender). there is a difference between what one does on the street (getting out of a vehicle ungracefully and flashing one's undergarments or lack thereof) and being behind a locked door and the curtains drawn to keep privacy. they arent the same at all. kitten

Loki45 -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/22/2009 1:40:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixidustpet its not the same at all. and if you think that through, you know it. if there is a tree on the other side of the wall where i am sunbathing, you betcha there is always that offchance that someone is going to make a fool of himself climbing it....no matter how "private" we think our yard is. if i am using a tanning bed in my own home, with the doors and windows shut, i have an expectation that when i turn my head, there will be no one there. there are laws about peeping toms, you know (no matter their gender). there is a difference between what one does on the street (getting out of a vehicle ungracefully and flashing one's undergarments or lack thereof) and being behind a locked door and the curtains drawn to keep privacy. they arent the same at all. If you read my comments more carefully, you'll see that I already stipulate that they aren't the "same." However it is an unfortunate and unsettling trend that could have been thwarted had a stand been taken on one of the previous, "lesser" incidents. The more society shrugs its shoulders, the more daring the perpetrators will get.

pixidustpet -> RE: "Assault on Erin Andrews' privacy scary for all female journalists" (7/22/2009 6:47:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 If you read my comments more carefully, you'll see that I already stipulate that they aren't the "same." However it is an unfortunate and unsettling trend that could have been thwarted had a stand been taken on one of the previous, "lesser" incidents. The more society shrugs its shoulders, the more daring the perpetrators will get. see, the problem isnt that there are idiotic people doing things....the problem is what do we do about it? the jails/prisons are already overflowing, the legal system takes seventy forevers at times to catch actual criminals, and crimes of the nature we're discussing take the back burner if they're prosecuted at all. "oh noes, a fine!" joe jackoff's editor in chief pulls out the petty cash, pays the fine, and its business as usual. it doesnt make the "news" which in most cases isnt NEWS but infotainment any longer. absolutely its wrong. absolutely it needs to be punished and to a point that it HURTS a so-called journalist who does this kind of muckraking...but its not going to happen, because we dont have the room in confinement that it would take to make OTHER paparrazi sit up and take notice, we DO have freedom of speech in this country and they wail en masse that we're trying to take their livelihood away, no matter what! meanwhile, a parent taking innocent nekkid offspring photos are hauled into the police station by overzealous film developers. why is that wrong and the exposure of brittney's hoo-ha ok? why is it ok to have at least 6 shows on about the stage moms with their prostitots dolled up like last week's hooker? the united states of america is a very odd duck. kitten (and i read your other posts on the subject after i replied to what you had said to me.)

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875