Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Felony charges for 2 who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    One of the differences in broadcast shows is that the people caught in the filming is that they can argue their image is being used to generate profits.

    That is a different issue from a violation of the statute.
    It might create civil litigation if you don't pixelate, but it won't cause a criminal prosecution
    True, but then at the end of the day, you can get sued for anything, so its more about minimizing the chances of a legitimate case. Though even an idiot can still cost you a few thousand dollars without any chance of actually winning their case.

    I imagine part of the issue here is that it was done secretly, and secret recording is a very questionable. Journalists have a lot of issues their editor will have to weight before allowing an "undercover" segment to be filmed, much less aired, and even then you can still be sued for things like breach of contract even if the investigation proves the original claims are true.

    This is one of those areas where intent and possible damages play major roles in what will be tolerated. Me filming a busy street to show my friends where I am, which I share to YouTube? Unlikely to be challenged. Me filming upskirt shots to get a glimpse of women's panties? That is likely to raise objections - even if both are done in public spaces without the knowledge of those filmed.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      True, but then at the end of the day, you can get sued for anything, so its more about minimizing the chances of a legitimate case. Though even an idiot can still cost you a few thousand dollars without any chance of actually winning their case.

      I imagine part of the issue here is that it was done secretly, and secret recording is a very questionable. Journalists have a lot of issues their editor will have to weight before allowing an "undercover" segment to be filmed, much less aired, and even then you can still be sued for things like breach of contract even if the investigation proves the original claims are true.

      This is one of those areas where intent and possible damages play major roles in what will be tolerated. Me filming a busy street to show my friends where I am, which I share to YouTube? Unlikely to be challenged. Me filming upskirt shots to get a glimpse of women's panties? That is likely to raise objections - even if both are done in public spaces without the knowledge of those filmed.


      I am relying on memory here, but I believe that it was not illegal to film upskirts until there were specific laws passed to address it.
      This is because of the same problems with "expectation of privacy" that I have mentioned above.
      And you are right suits can be filed by anyone for anything.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
        I am relying on memory here, but I believe that it was not illegal to film upskirts until there were specific laws passed to address it.
        This is because of the same problems with "expectation of privacy" that I have mentioned above.
        And you are right suits can be filed by anyone for anything.
        You're right about the upskirt stuff, but honestly, my memory on those cases is vague - and I'm pretty sure the textbook I read is bleeding over into a CSI episode I saw once.

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X