More privacy restrictions or fair decision?

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
Richard
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,839
Like?
Families have no right of expectation in public
In reply to mike703, 7 months ago

mike703 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Most kids would be overjoyed to have their photo printed in a newspaper or magazine..'

If you disagree, please let us know why the right of someone carrying a camera to follow kids around and repeatedly photograph them - despite being explicitly asked to stop by the parents - and then to publish the photos in a national newspaper, with their names included - is so essential to the fabric of society that it trumps the right of a family just to go for a walk without being harassed.

Because the rights of the photographer as a citizen should be upheld. It is the parents responsibility and if they don't want children photograph, don't put them in pubic places.

As for harassment. It is not legal to harass people with or without a camera. But without a camera you can go to a park and watch children, it is a public place. The parents may not like it and call the police but the individual has just as much right to be there. Local laws may have other stipulations but in public places you have no right to privacy. Looking at or even photographing is not harrasments. Protecting freedom is just as important as important as protecting children. Children are not harmed by being photographed, your believe that photography someone takes away their soul does not overrule no privacy in public expectations.

As far as a newspaper, they have different laws and rules how they act in public.

Count me as an "unreasonable human being", then.

OK.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Ah!New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow