You've got to be kidding me. You don't think it should be illegal to violate somebody's privacy for the sake of sexual pleasure? Are you saying that I can put a spy cam in the women's locker room at the gym and post the video on the internet as long as I blur out the victims' faces?
Bob
· 5 years ago
I agree with Stephen. Then, it should be absolutely legal for a child molester to put on the web videos of their exploits as long as they blur out their victims faces? This is ridiculous!
I do not need the government to tell me what is moral or immoral. I know that I can use common sense to judge what is good or bad but then again...maybe there should be a law regulating the use of common sense too?
Jim Harper
· 5 years ago
These comments reflect good (moral) outrage. I'm making a subtle and esoteric point: I don't believe there is a role for law when the "victim" is not victimized. Improper, non-harmful behavior is the realm of morals and social approbation.
Example: If you write on a piece of paper, "Jim Harper committed a murder when he was 11," that is false and would be defamatory, but it does me no harm unless you publish it. The falsity is a necessary, but insufficient condition. The publication defames me. You're wrong to have written a falsity but, if it's unpublished, that's the end of it.
UNLESS you want to import into U.S. law the idea that people should be held metaphsically inviolate by others. The only place I know of such doctrine is the right artists in Europe have to prevent their works from being mutilated or distorted. Incidentally, these are called "moral rights."
Stephen
· 5 years ago
"Metaphsically inviolate by others?" Someone who has upskirt photos taken of them without their consent is violated. How is that different from a peeping tom? Should it be legal to spy through someone's window?
Jim Harper
· 5 years ago
If you were to describe how an upskirt photo victim is violated (in the absence of harm: i.e., the shock of discovering the act, circulation of the pictures that sullies reputation, etc.), I think you'd find yourself talking about things that are essentially metaphysical. As to peeping, I think it's illegal because one has to commit a trespass to do it. If you can peep without trespassing, I think that's watching a strip show. Or would you make it a crime to observe from your living room a neighbor undressing through her open window? Anti-peeping statutes are just extra words in the statute books, like this video voyeurism law, that add moral opprobrium for the sake of politics.
Beverly
· 4 years ago
I have a problem. I know I have been videotaped in my own home, via the window, while participating in a private act. I also know that the initiator of this are people who work in retail security and some community police are aware of this. I remember feeling like someone had been in my home at one time. These off-duty police walk up to me and stand by me when I shop at the store they work at. They never say anything but they will invade my privacy by getting in my private space and smerking. They have shared this information with others and I truly believe there is a video, but I can't prove it. I believe this because whenever I go places I have never been before, I get the same smerks and attention. I find it hard to believe but some women also take part in the smerking or coming around me. I heard one man say to another that's the lady that is in the video, one day as I shopped at a different store. I have told some people but everyone acts like I should leave it alone since I can't prove it. I am upset because I think people should be more receptive to assisting rather than believing I am paranoid.
Feeling trapped and violated everyday
jane
· 4 years ago
I, too, have reason to believe I might have been videotaped. Can anyone tell me what I should look for? For example, can cameras be in light or ceiling fixtures, how small are they? And for the transmitters: where they might be located, and would someone have to be within a certain proximity with a laptop to download data, or can it even be downloaded via a picture capable cell phone? Where can I gather all this information in order to garner evidence? Thank you
All Comments
I do not need the government to tell me what is moral or immoral. I know that I can use common sense to judge what is good or bad but then again...maybe there should be a law regulating the use of common sense too?
Example: If you write on a piece of paper, "Jim Harper committed a murder when he was 11," that is false and would be defamatory, but it does me no harm unless you publish it. The falsity is a necessary, but insufficient condition. The publication defames me. You're wrong to have written a falsity but, if it's unpublished, that's the end of it.
UNLESS you want to import into U.S. law the idea that people should be held metaphsically inviolate by others. The only place I know of such doctrine is the right artists in Europe have to prevent their works from being mutilated or distorted. Incidentally, these are called "moral rights."
Feeling trapped and violated everyday