Let me get this straight… Stephen Baldwin, of all people, is “personally not OK with pornography” and says “I definitely think that it adds to the moral decay or our culture”…?
Isn’t this the guy who starred in those early-90’s soft-core porn films, like Bitter Harvest?
Whether this would constitute any kind of harassment would certainly depend on local laws. I know it wouldn’t be a criminal (as opposed to civil, which is not my specialty) violation in Washington state, where I work.
It would not be an invasion of privacy, because the patrons are in public when they enter the store. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
And again, it would depend upon state laws and such to determine if he could run the vehicle license plates. The Google ads certainly seem to indicate this may be possible, though.
Most jurisdictions tightened up access to license data after some notorious stalker incidents (most notably the murder of Rebecca Schaeffer).
Even if it’s legal where he is, sooner or later he’s going to type 5X731Q instead of 5X371Q and somebody is going to rip his wallet out through his nostrils.
It’s not like he’s photographing people going into a known crackhouse. Adult stores are legal (where zoned, of course) and I can’t see the difference between what he’s doing and some Carrie Nation wannabe photographing people going into the town tavern.
Is the public appearance of the customers sufficient to rule out harrassment, though?
This is an attempt to interfere with legal commerce that can be expected to negatively impact both the store and its patrons.
Suppose the man’s intolerance stemmed from some other value conflict – say he was targeting a supplier of halal foods. “I’m personally not OK with Islam. I definitely think that it adds to the moral decay or our culture.”
The freedom of religion obviously has more explicit constitutional protection than the freedom to view or sell erotic videos, but Americans are still free to view 'em.
Why would maintaining a database intended to locate “offenders” for busybodies be okay?
Publically posting “Bob Donaldson of 321 Elm St. shops for porn!” is harrassing, even if true.
Publically posting “Bob Donaldson of 321 Elm St. buys adult diapers!” is harrassing, even if true.
Then you could be sued. Publishing any false statement that damage’s a person’s reputation is the tort of defamation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
Honestly, though, I’m sure there’s some kind of stalking law you’d be violating. I know you can find just about anything on the internet, but what if someone’s phone number and address are unlisted? Or what if I’m using my friend’s car to go the porn store, because my car is in the shop?
Sounds like a really easy way to put a stop to this and get a lawsuit going. Get an easily verified alibi and have someone take ones car to the porn shop.
The US federal government defines “harrassment” as “a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such a person and serves no legitimate purpose.”
It seems to me (unqualified as I am) that the legal question is whether or not preventing people from making available or having access to legal material serves a legitimate purpose.
It seems evident that an organized campaign to do material harm to someone’s business can cause substantial emotional distress – and certainly having your name publicly posted as a patron of a porn store can be distressing.
If someone earnestly believes that people shouldn’t be able to watch or distribute porn, they can lobby in the usual way to change the law – I don’t think that trying to shame people into abstaining should qualify as a “legitimate purpose.”
An old Law School saying is “Truth is an absolute defense for libel/slander charges”.
Meaning that if what he says/prints is true, he simply can’t be convicted of libel/slander. Regardless of whether the act he reports was legal or illegal.
Of course, he’d have to watch out for all the things people have mentioned, that might make the story false:
error in entering the license number, error in copying down the info, error by the typesetter when making up the ad, etc.
assuming that the driver is the owner of the car. Like someone borrowing a friends car, a mechanic stopping while checking out a car repair, a potential buyer on a test drive, etc.
There are looser restrictions that apply to a “public figure”, making it harder for them to win a libel/slander case.
But if you knowingly publish something you know to be false, indicating that it is true, they could probably win a case against you. For example, Tom Cruise filed a large lawsuit against Chad Slater, who told a French gossip magazine that they had an affair, and Slater reached a settlement with him.
Though there is a sizeable category of writing called ‘celebrity fantasy’ which is largely about fantasies of encounters & affairs with celebrities. Generally, I think the authors make it clear that they are not claiming that it actually happened. Celebrities generally ignore this, possibly because that gives the authors a legal ‘out’. (But also possibly because a lawsuit would usually just give more publicity to the story.)
In the case of halal foods or adult diapers, civil rights protections would probably apply. Freedom of religion is different from protection from discrimination (of which harassment can be a form) based on religion. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 I believe provides the protection from discrimination based on religion. The Americans with Disabilities Act is where I’d look for protection related to the use of adult diapers.
While there is freedom of speech, I don’t think this particular type of speech (viewing porn) falls into any of the categories protected by civil rights. That would be the difference.
I could see different localities feeling very differently regarding whether this is a “legitimate purpose” or not.