Hacker News Reader

Comment by sph | Hacker News Reader

> Devil's advocate, but isn't the point of being nude in public that you are destigmatizing it?

Destigmatizing doesn't mean people are free to stare or film you. It's the same if someone were filming on a regular beach because they find people's bodies in bikinis attractive (or to have a wank, as admitted by that old creep). You probably wouldn't like that very much.

View on HN

Assuming we're talking about the US, if you are in public, people absolutely are free to stare or film you.

I assume they're also free to film in a nudist beach, or are there special laws?

Still, free or not, I can approach the guy with the camera and complain, like OP did with the nudist beach creep.

I'm in Europe, not sure how this works to be honest.

In the US, basically any public place (nude beaches included) is open for people to film. I believe there are some exceptions like public restrooms, where there exists a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

But yes, people are also free to complain to the person and make them feel uncomfortable for the scumbag behavior.

In Europe (Slovenia) you can't film people without their consent even if in public, unless if there's a huge number of people. Thus you're filming the crowd and not just a select few.

Same in Austria, and I believe, in the whole EU.

Not the whole EU, just the sensible parts.

And I'm pretty sure that even in European counties that theoretically require consent for publishing identifiable pictures of people in public, many thousands of such photos are posted every day.

There's the law and then there is etiquette. They do not necessarily match up. In this case the law is a lower limit, and you may face social counter-action: a person standing to block your camera, angry words, etc.

There are indeed plenty of legal ways to be an asshole.

Not to mention a drone operator can be pretty far away from a drone nowadays and the stability/video quality is increasing with every passing year.

No, but people being free to stare at whatever they like in public means that they are free to stare at you.

Just because there is physical distance it does not mean it is not harassment.

And just because something upsets you doesn't mean it's against the law.

We can make a very long chain saying vaguely related truism forth and back.

Or I could recommend reading https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap... instead.

It's not a truism that people are not free to cast their eyes in any direction they like in public.

This is exactly why I posted that link.

I never said anything about what people can or cannot do in public or in private, I only pointed out that "just looking" is not an ironclad defense.

Harassment is better defined in terms of both side intent, personal effects, and reasonable expectations, especially when anonymity and safety can be at risk.

People are free to stare in public. I don't know how else to put this to you.

And just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. They're orthogonal dimensions. What's your point?

That it's not illegal.

That's the thing about going about in public, you have accept that others will be there and tolerate what they do even if you don't like it.

Try go acting the clown in public and see if people won't stare and record you.

Sorry, but I'm not following. How do you make the connection from going out in public to you have to accept what others do? It feels like you're bringing in NAP or something without actually saying it.

> Sorry, but I'm not following. How do you make the connection from going out in public to you have to accept what others do?

Start with the context https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32673550

I don't know what you're having trouble understanding.

> It feels like you're bringing in NAP or something without actually saying it.

I don't know what NAP is or how that might address what I wrote.

No, I mean, please explain why you have to accept what others do. Are there people who are going to make me? If so, then they have some justification to do so - what is it?

> No, I mean, please explain why you have to accept what others do.

Because the law allows them and prevents you stopping them.

> Are there people who are going to make me?

Police officers perhaps. Depending what you mean by not accepting it.

> If so, then they have some justification to do so - what is it?

Who and what? I don't really follow. People are free to look at what they like in public. I feel I'm repeating myself, I don't quite know what the difficulty is with this.

And what is NAP?

Thanks for your patience. I'm trying to understand your first principles, and they seem to be what is lawful is moral and what is moral is lawful. I simply find it difficult to accept that as an axiom.

NAP is the non-aggression principle[1]. I brought it up, not because I agree or disagree with it, but to jump to that part of the dialog were that your basis for framework.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Those are not my "first principles", but otherwise I'm not really interested in explaining to people on the internet what they are.

But people are free to be in public and look at things that are in public view. This is not a statement of my beliefs or principles it's just a matter of fact. If you disagree, can you provide evidence?

Sorry, but matters of fact, in my experience, rarely are. Rather, they are typically assumptions, and personal and cultural projections about reality. It's a common trope around here to state opinions, assumptions, and unexamined ideas as fact as a rhetorical device, and when pressed, to avoid such an examination. At the end of the day it's not up to me to prove that they aren't; it's up to you to prove that they are.

So I take that to mean you are unable to substantiate your claim with evidence.

Generally people are permitted to do something unless it is prohibited, so as I see it the burden is on you to prove your claim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com