Cameras in your face

[aha]

I saw a story the other day about a man that had won the lottery in Texas. I didn't get the entire story but the gist of it seem to be that he had won millions and wouldn't give his daughter a penny towards her medical bills or something. Anyway it appeared, on the surface to look like a family dispute, nevertheless cameras were there in the local restaurant the next morning, filming the guy eating his breakfast. He put the newpaper over his head, but that only made him look more ridiculous.

So here is the question. Should newspaper people, private citizens, or anyone for that matter, be able to just walk right up to you and stick a camera in your face? I mean right up in your cheerios? I understand that you could eventually maybe get a restraining order against someone, but what about at first? What are our options then?

What if I a private citizen came to your table at a restaurant tonight and just started taking your picture? What if I stuck the camera 3 foot from your face and just started snapping away, what would you do? Knock my block off? But then I could sue you right? So, where does it end? Are there any ground rules here that I don't know about?

I realize that this topic may tend to lead to an amendment debate, but it seems like there is something we could do about anyone chasing people around and making their lives miserable.

[PVonAtark]

Aha:

Should newspaper people, private citizens, or anyone for that matter, be able to just walk right up to you and stick a camera in your face?

Well, I sure wouldn't like it if it happened to me. Freedom of the press is one thing. Privacy is quite another. The best way to proceed in this instance would be to calmly inform whatever press was taking pictures that if even one picture was put in the paper, you would sue for libel.

You also said:

I realize that this topic may tend to lead to an amendment debate

I couldn't agree more. the first amendment and the fourth amendment are clearly in direct conflict here. Just to help fuel the debate, here they are as from a site I found using Ask.com

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And there you have it.

[ellis555]

It seems to me that the amendments cross where they hit the "privacy" issue. The press has the right to be in your face with a camera if you're in public, but not if you're in private. This, of course, leaves the debate about public vs. private.

"Private" obviously covers any residences or venues that normally limit attendance (e.g., clubs requiring membership). "Public," on the other hand, just as obviously covers walking down the street. The cusp of the issue, I would venture, is restaurants (as mentioned in the OP) and the like. If you're in an establishment that is open to any member of the public, yet you're engaged in a "private" affair, such as eating, where is the line to be drawn?

Quite frankly, I haven't given it enough thought at this point to be able to answer my own question. But I thought I'd throw it out there for the rest of you to chew on.

-ellis

[pldennison]

Well, I sure wouldn't like it if it happened to me. Freedom of the press is one thing. Privacy is quite another. The best way to proceed in this instance would be to calmly inform whatever press was taking pictures that if even one picture was put in the paper, you would sue for libel.

I think maybe you don't know what libel means, and you can be damn sure that under the circumstances described you would be laughed out not by the judge, but by the clerk when you attempted to file the thing. Printing a photo of Joe Blow eating his breakfast with a caption reading "Joe Blow Eats Breakfast" ain't libel, nohow, no way, nowhere, and never will be. Libel has to involve the printing of false or damaging information, and has to have been done with reckless disregard for the truth. And, while the bar has been lowered in recent years for proving libel charges, it's still fairly high.

I couldn't agree more. the first amendment and the fourth amendment are clearly in direct conflict here.

Perhaps, if you know absolutely nothing about the way our government works or what the intentions of the amendments are or whose behavior they are intended to proscribe, and have received an "F" in every civics or government class you've ever taken. The 4th Amendment restricts the actions of the government, son, not newspapers.

[Steve-o]

If you were dealing with the press, and didn't want your picture taken and used, you could give the cammera "the bird", and keep on giving until the photographer left, thereby rendering the photos unusable. That's assuming that you are not in a situation where you care about PR.

If it were an individual or a member of the press, you could ask the resturant owner or manager to remove them from the resturant. You could also go to a convenience store (or whatever), and get yourself one of those disposable cammeras, and become a copy-cat. While you're at it, get some paper and a pen, and follow the person around everywhere taking pictures, writing notes, and just being as annoying as possible. Heck... if you can... follow them home. Then come back later with some friends, and throw they guy a blanket party (the best solution to any problem). Weeeeeee.

In either case, you could also just sit there. Don't move at all. Don't look at the cammera or react in any way to the cammera's presence (other than just sitting perfectly still). They will get bored quickly taking the same picture over and over. In the case of the lotto winner, I'm sure the cammera man wanted his victim to react to the cammera, and get pissed. That's probably why the pictures were taken of the guy while he was trying to enjoy his breakfast. The newspaper (I'm sure) wanted a picture of the lotto winner guy looking as mean as possible to go along with their story of what a mean guy he is. The best thing he could have done was to smile for the cammera.