In the example I gave in this thread, yes the man was in public, nude, however the platform (reddit) has a rule against posting this type of content. That reddit itself doesn't follow.
> I recently had someone give me a hard time because I had posted a selfie where someone else was in the background smoking a cigarette.
Why didn't you blur/crop/etc. them out, instead?
While you're not legally nor technically in the wrong and you're welcome to argue until you're blue in the face of 'public!', (the royal) you can ask those who are in the picture if you can post it, being a kind, thoughtful, and respectful human being, or you can go "it's in public! the law says I can!". And then the rest of us can make comments about morality and respect.
And if you don't know the people in the picture, ask yourself, do I really need to post this? (hint: no)
Because they weren't the focus of the photo and I really didn't even notice them there. And I don't believe that it matters one bit if someone is caught doing something embarrassing in public on camera. They could have been the focus of the photo and I still think it would have been morally acceptable to post it. Whether it is acceptable according to the rules of the platform it's posted on, or according to social etiquette, is a completely different question.
No. No it wouldn't have been.
You have absolutely zero need to post any picture online. It is a choice; a choice to further humliate the individual, possibly even causing them greater distress.
People who post pictures with justification like yours have caused those who are the target of the cruelty to commit suicide.
You do not need to post anything on social media. You choose to do so. And by choosing to post an embarrassing moment, you are the problem and you are morally in the wrong.
What if I catch an off duty cop on camera assaulting a person of color? Is it immoral to post that online? Where do you draw the line about which public acts should be moral to show in public?
Try again.
My reaction to someone smoking is going to be "gross". My reaction to someone getting a DUI is going far, far beyond that, despite how embarrassing it is for the individual who received the DUI.
If you're in a forest, maybe that's reasonable. But it would really be interesting to see some statistics about how many security cameras the average person is recorded on in a day, with the images broadcasted to servers around the world. I'd wager a guess that in modern cosmopolitan cities, it's probably upwards of 100 cameras a day. Meanwhile we're completely unaware of this fact and get upset when a stranger points a smartphone at us.
Example I saw in person a couple years ago (Estes Park, CO): https://originaltaffyshop.com/taffy-cam.php
They had a sign out front saying something like "tell your mom to visit this website so you can wave to her". Nobody seemed to mind. Maybe the difference here is that it is clearly marked?
Ultimately, moral codes are about creating a functioning society. Having people feel comfortable in public is an important aspect of that.
Uh, yes I do. And a very reasonable one!
I believe you’re beginning to see that you have certain expectations of privacy in public too.
And I still expect that videos of me showering and the gym would not be posted online. It's not about who owns the property, it's about whether I'm in a place where I can be seen by the public.
Let’s say you used radio waves to operate a robot on a public street. Would it be invasive for those nearby to look at the robot? According to you, yes it would be because you’re controlling the robot from the privacy of your home. Or if you control the robot into someone’s yard. Wouldn’t they have a right to look at it? I’m not sure how you physically sitting at home changes things.
You have an expectation in a public shower. You have an expectation of privacy when your bits are in public. Why not in other situations?
But in either case, in regards to your original comment, how did you determine these people were "in public" instead of "publicly observable"?
A shower may fall under that provided you have not been given notice that recording will take place. But people can takes photos of you at the gym working out and post thek online for others to laugh at.
If your apartment manager tells you they are filming or a sign is visible at the gym they can film you.
Connecting to the internet and requesting a resource means you are in public.
Yes, in public in that same instant - were public is constrained to be the people present there
Once it’s recorded it can be copied and transmitted to far off places and preserved in time
Sure, I don’t have an expectation of privacy. But I do have an expectation of not being made into content for anyone to consume.
this is the most incorrect statement i have seen today. you should experience what happens if you walk up to a woman with a purse and start rummaging through it. clothes would be unreasonable as well, you should look under peoples garments and tell them about how unreasonable they are being .
>> observing and reporting what they do in public.<< try this for real, you wont like what the observed response is.
im actually expecting you to duck the question, with non-interrogative questions
If the purse was open and you looked no problem.
If someone frontdoor is open you can look in from a public spot but cannot walk-in.
you are illustrating culturally, and legally accepted signals regarding expectation, or lack thereof, of privacy while in public purview.
THNX for your support BTW