I guess I’m just wondering if you’re talking about it being actually against the law to drill peepholes in the shower of your own home, or if you’re talking about getting a jury of someone’s peers to decide that they will have to pay for “pain and suffering”.
We’re not just talking about harmlessly drilling holes into one’s own walls. Rather, we’re talking about drilling holes into the walls of one’s bathroom with the express purpose of spying on one’s naked houseguests.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a jury trial or a bench trial, nor does it matter whether the plaintiff is seeking damages for “pain and suffering.” I think it’s a safe bet that no court of law would accept the excuse that such behavior is legally permissible on the grounds that the homeowner is the sole arbiter of how much privacy his or her guests get to have.
That would be a very large and of course, incorrect assumption on your part.
Once again pulling stuff from the nether regions. :rolleyes:
Once again, a cherry- picking retard posts without comprehension. I’ll see your :rolleyes: and raise you a :smack:
Try to keep up.
If not specified by law, you have the right to do as you please in your home. You are also probably subject to societal expectations of privacy. However, if that is not defined, it must be determined case, by case. If someone gets caught being naughty on a nanny cam is that peeping? What about if a yard cam catches a little outdoor activity in the pool? The easiest way to do so is to separate out general security against a prurient interest. So YES, you can drill all the peepholes you please. If you PEEP you could probably be held liable providing you are caught, and it can be shown that you drilled the holes for the express purpose of peeping. That is world away from the OP which is a camera installed to monitor the security of a bedroom in general and happens to catch a sexual interaction in the process.
If nothing else, I have seen a lot of Dopers whose house I won’t be showering in, let alone getting freaky in. 
And yeah, Der Trihs gets away with is blatant and clear violations of the law by having been around for a while before he started letting his crazy flag fly. If someone came in here and their first few posts were “Having relgious beliefs is a mental illness” and “No religion, anywhere, at any time, has ever done anything good. It’s all evil, always, no matter what.” or “The Republicans are sheer evil, and are just biding their time until they can erect death camps so they can liquidate non-Christian non-white males.” that guy would have been warned and banned with the quickness.
But because he waited, and established himself, and becuase there is a cadre of folks that think the sun shines out of his ass on the religious issues, the gets a clear pass.
It must be nice to be one of the chosen.
They don’t just think it. They have the video to prove it.
One funny thing is that on abortion, he considers himself a defender of women. And he posts in those threads a lot. But whenever he posts in threads about dating, he shows himself to be very much a misogynist.
No thanks, feel free to go deeper into your little delusion without me.
How ironic.
First, let’s remember the nature of your claim. You specifically said that “there is absolutely NO expectation of privacy in a private residence.”
If you had actually demonstrated that there are no laws that restrict a homeowner’s ability to determine the amount of privacy accorded their guests, your point would be valid. You have not done so, though. At best, you have shown that there are 13 states which specifically preclude the use of unauthorized security cameras. This does not necessarily prevent the other 37 states from deeming such cameras to be impermissible on other grounds, nor does it mean that a homeowner can install any cameras he wants for any other purpose – or even to spy on his guests without the benefit of moderntechnology.
In other words, your claim remains unproven.
For the sake of argument, let’s grant that statement. How does it prove the point that you were trying to defend?
Quite simply, it doesn’t. You didn’t simply say that it’s legal to have a security camera in one’s bedroom, or that it might happen to catch a sexual interaction. Rather, you said that a guest should have NO expectation of privacy whatsoever – none, nada, zip.
So why do you want us to believe that, all along, you were merely talking about the happenstance recording of sexual congress by a camera that exists solely for security purposes? We all know that wasn’t so.
You made an extravagant and indefensible claim, and now you’re hoping that we’ll forget all about it.
That is, unless the topic is about so-called abortion for men. Then it’s all about bros before lying, condom-sabotaging, semen-stealing hoes.
Meh, not really. If anything I was overbroad without doing my homework. Either way, this whole thing started when another poster made the same sweeping declarations about illegality. Since nobody else seemed to want to do it, I looked it up and amended my previous statement. If yuo want to play little gotcha games, by all means to so. I concede the point, oh deary, deary me, I used exaggeration in the Pit to make a point. It isn’t like any of our other posters in this thread have done that at all.
I don’t understand your second point. The OP of the thread we were discussing mentioned that this was the exact scenario. The legal tangent we got off onto seems to back up that being the homeowner, he’s done nothing wrong legally by installing a cam in his own bedroom. (I’m assuming he is not in one of the 13 states) If you are going to make the argument that there is no legitimate reason for having a security camera in a bedroom then do so. It is not however, illegal in the vast majority of this country. Stating that having a passive cam running constantly that ensures someone isn’t nicking the jewelry in the bedroom is equivalent to drilling a peephole in the shower is pure hyperbole and I was addressing that.
Boy, you are REALLY determined to bluff your way through this, aren’t you? Now you’re claiming that you did TOO MUCH homework, when it’s painfully obvious that you’ve only done a modicum thereof.
Oh, yes you do. You’re just acting as though you don’t understand. That way, you can keep hoping that we’ll forget about your extravagant claim that a guest has no right to any expectations of privacy within someone else’s home.
I know that you’d like us all to forget about your more over-the-top claims regarding what’s permissible and what isn’t. In a way, I don’t blame you.
No, seriously, I don’t understand. Though I think at this point your just trolling me. 
I really WAS addressing the OP scenario. That’s what I’ve done throughout the original thread.
I already granted you that that my original statement was technically incorrect and made for the purpose of illustration. If you are serious, I don’t understand why you are persisting that I have some sort of strange ulterior motive.
“Something new”? It’s been ten years, have you done anything new?
Low blow unrelated to the matter at hand. Compounded by board cliche. -5 points.
Related to my earlier comment, which is pertinent to her snark.
Unfortunately I have a real job which means I can’t post as often as Guinie. You’ll have to look on the last page.
Championing abortion is perfectly suited to such a misogynist. Abortion’s existence means it’s easier to have sex without the risk of having to pay for a child for eighteen years, which is another of the things (besides Christians and Republicans) that fills him with horror. Guys like that fully support women’s rights not to inflict a child upon them.
Because not considering women to be superior beings = misogynist. :rolleyes:
As I’ve said repeatedly, I wouldn’t trust anyone, of either gender with the power to ruin my life without consequence to themselves. The fact that some people dishonestly pretend that qualifies as misogyny doesn’t make it true.
And if I opposed abortion, I’d be a misogynist for not supporting their right to choose. How convenient; any position I take is proof of misogyny.
Originally Posted by Der Trihs:
You have a very bizarre view of what a feminist is. No feminist would say such a thing since he or she believes in equal social, political, and economic rights for the genders. What you claim is irrational and completely contradictory.
Nonsense, that’s a classic No True Scotsman Fallacy. Some feminists think that; others are motivated by a hatred for men, and just because you disagree doesn’t mean they never existed. That after all is why the term largely has fallen out of fashion; too many women called themselves feminists while ranting about how men were all evil, which is why these days we have a plethora of independent, liberated women who if asked would insist that they most certainly aren’t feminists. And yes, I’ve heard feminists say that and worse; there’s the classic “men are all rapists and that’s all that they are” for example. Or “there are two kinds of people in the world, women and rapists”, or “of course he’s a child molester; he’s a father”. And then there’s the ones who called for the extermination of men, the ones who phoned up female mathematicians with death threats for taking up such a "male profession, and so on. Just because it has become politically popular on the left to pretend that the hateful version of feminism never existed doesn’t make it true; I was there when they were all over the place.
Certainly in the period I grew up in feminists who talked about equality were completely drowned out by the ones who hated men and anything they could construe as masculine. If that was the “fringe” then I’m afraid that the “silent majority” was silent indeed at the time.