Couple attacks Autistic teen photographing them

Page 5 of 7 [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

27 Sep 2016, 7:48 am

B19 wrote:
Here is a video from the BBC today, where privacy was considered worth invading in order to demonstrate abuse of an autistic person (a pretend autistic person in this case). I am interested in hearing opinions on this invasion of privacy, (whether it is justified and why) particularly from those who thought the couple's assault on the boy in this thread was justified.

My own view is that the BBC were justified in videoing this man without his permission or knowledge.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-37456884


This story is the subject of another thread: http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=329744

There are a couple of issues to this: the abuse, the suggestion that the abuse is a viable treatment and the subterfuge of the reporter.

I would argue that the reporter's actions were justified because of the actions of the abuser. His motivation was to stop the abuse. He still acted dishonestly, but the situation called for it. So it is not really a good comparison to the original story of this thread because the motivation of the kid was not to help others.

The attack on the kid was not justified, but it was predictable. And to not explain to him why people might be angered at his actions is doing him a disservice.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

27 Sep 2016, 11:28 am

Jute wrote:
But that's not true. There are plenty of things that some people might want to say which the law forbids them from saying because other people do not want to hear those things being said.

There are reasonable limits on free speech, but it's one of the most protected rights in this country.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

27 Sep 2016, 11:40 am

Jute wrote:
I certainly don't condone violence of any sort and at no point in any of my posts have I indicated otherwise. I also don't condone invasion of privacy. Maybe I'll wear a Burkha in future to prevent soul stealing.

Where was it settled in courts that photos could be taken of unwilling subjects in public places? There are quite a number of countries on this planet and the same laws don't hold sway in them all.

US Laws
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

UK Photography rights:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-p ... rights-v2/

Australian Photography rights:
http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

Canadian Photography rights:
http://ambientlight.ca/laws/

New Zealand Photography rights:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/P ... 006/2.html



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,564
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Sep 2016, 11:49 am

People should remember watching someone from a distance and taking pictures is a rather threatening behavior.


_________________
There's a magic spider on the wind
He spins a web for you
And if you wish upon a spider
All your wishes will all come true
-Nekrogoblikon


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,531
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Sep 2016, 11:49 am

auntblabby wrote:
why are so many people downplaying the fact that the thugs trespassed on the private property of the autistic family? that the thugs reached into the autistic family's car and committed violence? the majority of the fault lies with the thugs.


Some of us are more interested in understanding the motivations of others than simply condemning them; for example, I don't condone getting in a physical fight over someone stealing a parking space, but I understand how it could happen, that's a truly infuriating thing to do, despite being 100% legal, and not everyone has perfect self control. Same thing here, being photographed by a stranger in public is totally legal, but incredibly discomforting for some people, so I understand how that could lead to the photographer getting attacked. IIRC, Chris Rock did a pretty good bit about this very thing years ago, but it's too profane to post here.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Jute
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

27 Sep 2016, 11:57 am

AspE wrote:
Jute wrote:
But that's not true. There are plenty of things that some people might want to say which the law forbids them from saying because other people do not want to hear those things being said.

There are reasonable limits on free speech, but it's one of the most protected rights in this country.


Who decides what is "reasonable?" Certainly not the person who is being censured and censored. What is "reasonable" one day can suddenly become unreasonable on another. Words are simply sounds or groups of letters, of themselves they aren't good or bad. It's strange that a country that protects the rights of an individual to carry a deadly weapon will censure that same individual simply for using a word that is currently disapproved of.


_________________
Gamsediog biptol ap simdeg Bimog, toto absolimoth dep nimtec gwarg. Am in litipol wedi memsodth tobetreg bim nib.

Somewhere completely different:


Autism Social Forum

I am no longer active on this forum, I've quit.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,094
Location: Pacific Northwest

27 Sep 2016, 11:58 am

I think this is no different than trying to tease other drivers on the road or keeping them from passing or pulling a cigarette from someone's mouth or grabbing a pacifier from a older kid's mouth who is passed the diaper stage, all this can get you assaulted and attacked and for on the road it can cause road rage. Same as for tossing a drink at someone or your food or confronting people for doing something wrong such as littering or riding their bike on the sidewalk. All that can also get you assaulted too and stat a fight. So that goes for taking photos too of people without their permission. You never know what temper a person has and what problems they have.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Jute
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

27 Sep 2016, 11:59 am

AspE wrote:
Jute wrote:
I certainly don't condone violence of any sort and at no point in any of my posts have I indicated otherwise. I also don't condone invasion of privacy. Maybe I'll wear a Burkha in future to prevent soul stealing.

Where was it settled in courts that photos could be taken of unwilling subjects in public places? There are quite a number of countries on this planet and the same laws don't hold sway in them all.

US Laws
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

UK Photography rights:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-p ... rights-v2/

Australian Photography rights:
http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

Canadian Photography rights:
http://ambientlight.ca/laws/

New Zealand Photography rights:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/P ... 006/2.html



Gee, that's five out of how many countries in the world?


_________________
Gamsediog biptol ap simdeg Bimog, toto absolimoth dep nimtec gwarg. Am in litipol wedi memsodth tobetreg bim nib.

Somewhere completely different:


Autism Social Forum

I am no longer active on this forum, I've quit.


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

27 Sep 2016, 12:56 pm

Jute wrote:
AspE wrote:
Jute wrote:
But that's not true. There are plenty of things that some people might want to say which the law forbids them from saying because other people do not want to hear those things being said.

There are reasonable limits on free speech, but it's one of the most protected rights in this country.


Who decides what is "reasonable?" Certainly not the person who is being censured and censored. What is "reasonable" one day can suddenly become unreasonable on another. Words are simply sounds or groups of letters, of themselves they aren't good or bad. It's strange that a country that protects the rights of an individual to carry a deadly weapon will censure that same individual simply for using a word that is currently disapproved of.

Reasonable means that it doesn't put people in immediate physical danger or jeopardize their business with written lies.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

27 Sep 2016, 12:57 pm

Jute wrote:
AspE wrote:
Jute wrote:
I certainly don't condone violence of any sort and at no point in any of my posts have I indicated otherwise. I also don't condone invasion of privacy. Maybe I'll wear a Burkha in future to prevent soul stealing.

Where was it settled in courts that photos could be taken of unwilling subjects in public places? There are quite a number of countries on this planet and the same laws don't hold sway in them all.

US Laws
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

UK Photography rights:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-p ... rights-v2/

Australian Photography rights:
http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

Canadian Photography rights:
http://ambientlight.ca/laws/

New Zealand Photography rights:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/P ... 006/2.html



Gee, that's five out of how many countries in the world?

I don't know what you expect of me, I'm only justifying the laws in the US. I can't be responsible for the laws of other nations, but I can object to them.



Jute
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

27 Sep 2016, 1:20 pm

My point is that it isn't a universal truth that people are allowed to photograph other people without their consent. It may be allowed in some countries, at present, but even there those laws could change. It may be perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public places, in the five countries that you listed, without there consent but if you took a camera to a waterpark, playground or beach and started photographing children I'm willing to bet that you'd soon find yourself under arrest. So, if you shouldn't photograph boys and girls, why is it okay to photograph men and women, without their consent, even when they expressly ask you not to?

Quote:
Reasonable means that it doesn't put people in immediate physical danger or jeopardize their business with written lies.


Does the "N" word do that? Or any of the other racial or sexually descriptive words, which were once in common usage but are now no longer allowed?

I can't even write fag-got on this website, even though it's the name of a traditional English savoury meat dish.


_________________
Gamsediog biptol ap simdeg Bimog, toto absolimoth dep nimtec gwarg. Am in litipol wedi memsodth tobetreg bim nib.

Somewhere completely different:


Autism Social Forum

I am no longer active on this forum, I've quit.


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

27 Sep 2016, 2:00 pm

Jute wrote:
My point is that it isn't a universal truth that people are allowed to photograph other people without their consent.

I never said it was universal, in fact I explicitly noted that other countries have different laws and customs.

Jute wrote:
It may be allowed in some countries, at present, but even there those laws could change. It may be perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public places, in the five countries that you listed, without there consent but if you took a camera to a waterpark, playground or beach and started photographing children I'm willing to bet that you'd soon find yourself under arrest. So, if you shouldn't photograph boys and girls, why is it okay to photograph men and women, without their consent, even when they expressly ask you not to?

You are actually wrong about that, it's OK to photograph children in the US. I agree that it could be rude to photograph people after them asking you not to, but that's a different argument.

Jute wrote:
Does the "N" word do that? Or any of the other racial or sexually descriptive words, which were once in common usage but are now no longer allowed?

It's not illegal to say the N word.

Jute wrote:
I can't even write fag-got on this website, even though it's the name of a traditional English savoury meat dish.

It's not illegal to say the F word.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,564
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

27 Sep 2016, 2:20 pm

Jute wrote:
My point is that it isn't a universal truth that people are allowed to photograph other people without their consent. It may be allowed in some countries, at present, but even there those laws could change. It may be perfectly legal to photograph strangers in public places, in the five countries that you listed, without there consent but if you took a camera to a waterpark, playground or beach and started photographing children I'm willing to bet that you'd soon find yourself under arrest. So, if you shouldn't photograph boys and girls, why is it okay to photograph men and women, without their consent, even when they expressly ask you not to?

Quote:
Reasonable means that it doesn't put people in immediate physical danger or jeopardize their business with written lies.


Does the "N" word do that? Or any of the other racial or sexually descriptive words, which were once in common usage but are now no longer allowed?

I can't even write fag-got on this website, even though it's the name of a traditional English savoury meat dish.


It is probably more you cannot call people on here fa***ts as an attempt to insult/flame them, if you're talking about a savory meat dish I am sure people wouldn't be upset about it or worry too much about censoring your post.


_________________
There's a magic spider on the wind
He spins a web for you
And if you wish upon a spider
All your wishes will all come true
-Nekrogoblikon


Jute
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

27 Sep 2016, 2:37 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
It is probably more you cannot call people on here fa***ts as an attempt to insult/flame them, if you're talking about a savory meat dish I am sure people wouldn't be upset about it or worry too much about censoring your post.


Try typing Fag-got here without the hyphen.


_________________
Gamsediog biptol ap simdeg Bimog, toto absolimoth dep nimtec gwarg. Am in litipol wedi memsodth tobetreg bim nib.

Somewhere completely different:


Autism Social Forum

I am no longer active on this forum, I've quit.


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

27 Sep 2016, 2:52 pm

Jute wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
It is probably more you cannot call people on here fa***ts as an attempt to insult/flame them, if you're talking about a savory meat dish I am sure people wouldn't be upset about it or worry too much about censoring your post.


Try typing Fag-got here without the hyphen.

You have no particular right to post on a private forum. It's not the same thing as government censorship. Free speech is a right that can only (and for the most part not legally) infringed by a government entity.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 104,595
Location: the island of defective toy santas

27 Sep 2016, 10:23 pm

if some thugs broke into my car and assaulted me despite me having done no harm to the thugs, I wouldn't give a hoot in hell WHY they did it. this country has gone to the dogs AFAIC.