this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
488 points (93.6% liked)
Privacy
3192 readers
266 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fuck internet points.
When in public, you can be recorded. Your permission isn't required. Public spaces belong to all. People have the right to film, take photos, and record audio. If you don't want that, campaign for legislation to change it. "Rudeness" isn't a legal term. If you can't tolerate being recorded in a public space, even "rudely", leave. Go somewhere else. If you assault someone recording you in public, you will potentially get the shit kicked out of you by that person, bystanders, and/or cops.
The state, in a legalistic framework, has a near-monopoly on justified escalation to physical violence. The person recording you has to be assaulting you first or disturbing the peace to a degree that it endangers you or other people's safety in order for your violence to be justified as defense.
You can't start a fight legally, but you can finish one. "Rudeness" isn't a good enough reason to start swinging.
So again, control yourself.
So, we are now supposed to just let creeps video record women because they paid for fancy glasses? Anyone notice this was a young, attractive woman?
TLDR: The law and it's philosophical/moral foundation and practical application doesn't run on what you think, and society is better for it.
Once again, the law says you aren't protected from being recorded in a public space, attractive or not. There's a plethora of ways to legally record people overtly and covertly in public. The law also says you can't grab other people's stuff and destroy it to prevent being recorded.
If the guy was assaulting her or disturbing the peace, she'd be justified in using violence to defend herself. She also had the option to talk to a cop and accuse this guy of harassment, which he was doing and others may have recorded evidence of that. But one is not morally or legally justified in starting fights, only finishing them as self-defense. The amount of force legally acceptable falls under the umbrella of the concept of "reasonable application of force" within what's commonly known as a "force escalation continuum".
So, no "creeps" shouldn't be allowed to record women as that would constitute harassment, but it's better to go through proper legal channels than pretend to be a tough-guy/girl and start an altercation that may have permanent consequences.
This is what a lawyer who specializes in getting off drunk drivers and playground perverts would argue.
This is shitty behavior.
I don't know what's so hard to understand about "you're not allowed to put your hands on someone unless they put their hands on you first", but go off, I guess.
I didn’t suggest assaulting anyone, you’re trying to paint this in a more violent light than it is.
Forcefully grabbing someone's property to break it is assault.
Then why is Donald Trump not in jail?
Because his handler has blackmail material on the people who would be able to do something about it.
The Corporatist Oligarchy wants him in the presidency (for now).
Not to mention, what you’re suggesting here, is that this lady should have had her ass kicked by cops and bystanders and that would have been an acceptable outcome. I strongly disagree with that.
Her "ass-kicking" would only be acceptable to the point where she could be detained and arrested.
The guy with smart glasses could also be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace depending on what his exact actions were and if there's recordings of him.
...And you think cops in this century of 21 would stop there... why?
Because it's a white woman
Are we talking about the hypothetical being posed or a different one?