I was reading this story and somewhere they mention the group Citizens Against Nude Juicebars and Pornography (isn’t that hysterical?) was filming people going into the club in order to discourage patronage. I’ve heard this done before with XXX book stores or video stores, so I got wondering, is that legal?
That stuff isn’t really my bag, but if it was, I’d probably be inclined to break the camera over their heads. Talk about annoying. What are a person’s rights in this case?
Well, the alternative to people being free to take these pictures is for people to need to get permission to take any picture, right? And we know that doesn’t happen–we’ve all seen the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade on TV?
So unless there were some law to the contrary, for example specifically protecting people’s right to do something without being photographed, it seems like the customers are indeed fair game.
But would they be able to use the pictures they took? Could they set up a web page saying these were ptrons of the particular club?
If they did could the picture takers be sued succesfully?
I like juice, but I see nothing wrong with what they are doing. It’s better than bombing abortion clinics. I’d like to see similar things done with tobacco company executives and owners of check cashing/payroll loan companies.
Invasion of privacy? If I understand your scenario, all the photography happened in a public place. No right of privacy in a public place.
Libel? Truth is an absolute defense against libel.
Harassment? Possibly, here’s one definition:
A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(1) To cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person;
(2) To cause physical damage to the property of another person;
(3) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
(4) To do any act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or any other person with respect to his physical or mental health or safety; and
(b) The person by words or conduct places the person receiving the threat in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out.
IANAL but it seems to me that there would be a burden of proof on the plaintiff to show intent to harm.
I’d bet that a “dirty old man” of a local judge who like his naked juice could think up something to stop the photographers from using his image. Whether it would be legally correct or just something to tie the guys up in court for a few months I don’t know…
I just saw this story on CNN.com and also found the name of the Anti group quite funny.
Their philosophy goes against what I know of the Dakotas. The Cowboy Way is to let people more or less do what they want. Now I see the Old West is being taken over by the school marms.
Sure they could. As long as they’re not making money with the pictures, they’re perfectly free to post them on a webpage or something. If they sold the pictures, or used them for profit in some other way, then they’d be guilty of misappropriation.
Nope. You have no expectation of privacy when you’re in a public place. It might not even be illegal to do so inside porn shops, if the owner was okay with it (which, presumably, he wouldn’t be.)
I’d just offer a big cheery smile and wave to the camera. Maybe do a little dance or something. You could even offer to share your new acquisitions with those filming it.
Yeah, I can see how Saudi Arabia might be a nicer, freer place to live than the United States, the way things are going.
I don’t think that many people hold that opinion. IIRC Paul is planning to retire to Mexico or some place in Central America soon. If you’re not Muslim then the only real reason to go to Saudi is for the money. Which is a bit of a pity since the Red Sea is nice.
