LogFAQs > #886483862

hollow_shrine posted...

It looks like his "right to free speech" was clashing with their "right to privacy." Thing is, the reporter was free to write whatever he wanted about the demonstration and it's associated tent. They just couldn't take photographs. Until their relationship soured and the protesters waved him away he could've taken an interview and used an introductory paragraph to describe the scene and more than satisfied both his editor and the demands of the people he was reporting on.

But instead it looks like he insisted on trying to take photographs of private citizens who specifically denied him access to their likeness. There's all kinds of precedent supporting the protesters here. Did anyone bat an eye at this incident then? And why is it relevant in this discussion now?

They have no right to privacy on a public place do they?
The university didn't give them a private space, they took it by force of protest. As such, this was not a private property saying "you cannot be here" but an open public space where people without authority decided "this is our space" and used force to enforce it.

There is no specific law about photographing people or publishing the images; some of the issues are very vaguely regulated. Taking a picture of a person in a public space does not require consent

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#The_right_of_privacy


It is relevant because it shows the contrast of rights. The man has the right to be there and take photos.
But other people who are not part of the government are using force to censor him.

And like your gut reaction was to defend them, so it is the gut reaction to defend other contrasts of rights where illegal force is used to enforce censorship all in the name of "consequences".
---

sigless user is me or am I?