What they have done is create the simple, straight forward sign that you have asked for, and elaborated on the back. With sufficient sign coverage, both the short message and longer message are conveyed.
While TL-DR is a valid concern, it is easily addressed by placing two together facing opposite directions, with a gap for those curious to read the lengthier version.
The lengthier version performs is necessary, at a minimum, to explain and promote the public safety features of their smartphone app. This is not a common feature, and no one can use it if they are not informed. The posters make clear that incident reports are actually monitored in real time, unlike traditional online help tickets that are answered in one to two business days. They also hold the event security accountable for quick response to incidents.
With adequate coverage of signs, your concerns about TL-DR are fully addressed. I see absolutely no downsides to a consistent detailed message appearing on the backside of the antiharrassment posters
I think y’all are underestimating the target demographic’s willingness to read lots of text :).
Yes, the criminal code can handle some of this stuff–but the standard of proof is going to be higher in the courts than it would be in my home, or than it would be at a convention. It’s entirely appropriate to kick someone out for a crime you can’t prove to judicial standards, but that you’re confident occurred.
And there are some behaviors that may not be strictly illegal, but that are so gross that you should be kicked out of the con for engaging in, such as following a cosplayer around snapping pictures of her butt without asking permission. (I haven’t checked the legal status of that behavior). Or hitting on someone after they’ve made their lack of interest clear. Or telling someone in offensive language that their cosplay is unacceptable because they’re the wrong race/gender/body type.
No one is trying to eliminate photographs. It’s unwanted touching and harassment that rises to the level of criminal offenses or uncivil behavior that’s being warned against.
The full quote is “If you’d like to a picture *with or of *another…”
That’s just curtesy. No one is trying to eliminate photographs, just infuse civil behavior. Of course someone has a right to say no, especially if it’s a photo “with” another cosplayer. Maybe they’re busy or rushing to meet someone, they can’t say no? And if they do say no and you follow them around trying to get a photo, it starts to cross the line to criminal behavior.
That’s indeed another factor – since the venue is in fact owned and operated by someone other than you the organizer, you want to make sure your event participants don’t take upon themselves to try and run the place in a way that will make trouble for you with the owner/operators.
[/QUOTE]
It sounds sort of like they are going in two directions at once - rules against assault and harassment are still in place, but not rules about harassing people who go to the “wrong” toilet.
Also note that the event is by ticket only and the Javits center is not a public-owned space (as far as I know), do the rules about the right to take pictures in public spaces apply, when it’s a private building a a ticket-only entrance?
I was at a concert hall yesterday to see David Sedaris and they had multiple “no photographs” signs posted and they physically blocked people from taking pictures- is that different?
I remember reading an article written by a cosplayer and stating in no uncertain terms that taking a picture of herself without asking for her permission wasn’t acceptable.
When faced with statements like yours, she responded by saying it was “blaming the victim”. Even though I agree she has a right to her self-image, I’m still unconvinced by this argument. There’s a point (in this case showing off in costume at a convention) where you should expect that people will take pictures and the only way to avoid it is to change your own behaviour rather than expecting the rest of humanity will change its.
If I’m walking through a door, there’s no rule that says I have to hold the door open for the person behind me. But it’s common courtesy to do so. If you’re going to wear a costume around a public event, you should have the expectation that people will take your picture. But it would still be common courtesy for people to get your permission first.
Not sure where that leaves me…I guess I’d be opposed to a rule that said “no pictures without permission,” but I’m fine with a sign that says “please ask permission first” in an attempt to encourage courteous behavior.
Maybe I missed something along the way but I thought I was paying attention as this thread has developed. …
We’ve been diligent on discussing the merits of the simple vs detailed sign to deter creeps. And on talking about how much unwanted touching and unwanted picture-taking happens at less enlightened cons. All of which is good and fine discussion.
But did we ever really answer the OP’s question???
What exactly is “bathroom policing?” If it’s vigilantes ensuring creeps don’t use opposite-sex costumes to sneak into bathrooms to ogle, well that seems like the kind of thing we’d want to police. Or at least the kind of thing the harassment complainers would want to police.
And if it isn’t stopping creeps in disguise, what is it???
Telling people which bathroom they should use. It’s there to protect trans people, and quite possibly to protect people cosplaying as the opposite gender. Basically, it’s saying mind your own business and let people use the bathroom of their choice.
As for the photo issue, it’s a private event, and the organisers are entitled to make whatever rules about photography they choose. It basically is enforcing courtesy, but there’s a significant amount of people who attend these events who are not courteous to cosplayers, for whatever reason. As certain people here are demonstrating, by falsely claiming they have a right to take whatever photos they want, regardless of consent.
Outside in public, it’s a different matter. You can take all the photos you want of people passing by.
It’s not the responsibility of the average con-goer to decide if someone is transgender or in the wrong bathroom. If they have a suspected problem, they can report it discreetly and let the staff handle it appropriately.
I believe you are mistaken in what the rules are trying to say. The rules specifically prohibit harassing individuals who choose the “wrong” bathroom. However, it is simply not discrimination to designate separate male/female facilities.
Harassing someone using the facility they identify with in good faith is prohibited; reporting someone for inappropriate behavior (leering, etc) in the bathroom of the opposite sex would still be strongly encouraged.
