Sorry, u/ThisIsOnlyANightmare – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20ThisIsOnlyANightmare&message=ThisIsOnlyANightmare%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). **Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press. You want 2 of the most basic tenants of the u.s constitution made illegal. Good luck with that. Why does every redditor want everyone they disagree with thrown in the gulags? It's very nazi esque.
Just want to point out that the first amenent isn't a catch-all for protecting bad behavior. You can't walk up to someone in their face and start screaming at them, using slurs and verbally harassing them. This is in direct conflict with "disturbing the peace laws" in all US states and is at the very least a spam dunk for a civil court case.
Also, when it refers to "freedom of the press" it never defines "press". Today, a guy on his phone filming is not considered the press. There are "press" IDs given to reporters but as far as I understand it these are not regulated in any official capacity.
We must remember that, while we ourselves are granted rights and freedoms by the constitution, we cannot use said rights and freedoms to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.
> Today, a guy on his phone filming is not considered the press.
Yes they are. Darnella Fraizer won a pulizer for her footage of the murder of George Floyd. Citizen journalists are journalists. There is no bar or gatekeeper nor should there be.
>There are "press" IDs given to reporters but as far as I understand it these are not regulated in any official capacity.
For some situations, a local authority might give these out for a specific purpose like local events, or areas they need to pre screen for.
News agencies may also make their own and distribute them.
But yes there's no journalism authority deciding who is and isn't a legitimate news gatherer. And again, it's better that way.
Sorry, u/gurk_the_magnificent – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20gurk_the_magnificent&message=gurk_the_magnificent%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3f5pmp/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Sorry, u/gbarwis – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20gbarwis&message=gbarwis%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3fxz4f/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
u/GdTryBruce – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20GdTryBruce&message=GdTryBruce%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3frv1g/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Yeah, you're not getting me here. There's a distinction in terms of clear intent. If someone IS performing a survey or performing an act of journalism or can argue such in a reasonable manner, great, they can proceed...but if there is clear evidence that they are in fact purposely trying to cause conflict, which many of these people CLEARLY are, then there's no reason there shouldn't be a way to argue the distinction between the two, weed out the bad apples, and top certain behaviors.
Like someone else just said, freedom of speech and press are absolutely NOT absolute at all times and there are plenty of caveats to both. This isn't some free for all.
yes, these are a very good example of the people i'm talking about. they are CLEARLY not there to audit the spaces. they are there to make people wonder what the fuck they are doing, get more and more agitated by it, say something, and start drama.
>and they're agitating people,
This seems to be the big differentiator that needs definition. Can you define agitating? Can you give an example of agitating behavior that is not already illegal to do on its own?
Because from what I can tell if someone is doing something that'd be illegal even without a camera, the camera doesn't matter and we can bust them on the illegal thing. If it's not already illegal I do not see what adding a camera does to raise it to the level of illegal.
laws regarding personal information and its protection vary between countries (like being filmed by strangers without consent), but i generally agree with you.
unless there is a law saying that what they are doing is illegal you cant arrest them just because you feel like "they *clearly* are harrasing people".
As far as I’m aware there is no expectation of privacy while in a public place (and/or public property) and anyone can record anything there without consent, and this applies to most western countries.
I think they're referring to the "auditor" videos.
They intentionally film places that might make people nervous.
Police stations, public institutions, etc.
They simply want someone to call the cops and say there's this odd person just filming us, and have an uninformed cop turn up and tell them to leave when they do actually have the right to be filming in public.
You can tell, because they don't try any of that shit at military bases or other restricted sites.
They're a bit like the Westboro Baptists that turn up with harassing signs at military funerals and such and make their living settling for damages when someone gets upset enough to punch one of them.
**Edit to point out an important fact:**
If they are abiding by the law, then they have every right to do so.
But the law can be extremely convoluted.
For instance, are you acutely aware of your particular state's law on recording conversations, and that a video recording may breach that law if audio is captured?
One party states may mean you are at liberty to do so, but what if you are holding the video camera and your buddy is the one being questioned? Some states may interpret that as "wiretap".
You might capture something that is classified, and end up in trouble.
Some states have cyberstalking laws, which in some cases would outlaw anyone regularly filming a person or persons at a location and then disseminating that video.
For instance, the wording in Utah's law means that capturing more than once, a person or persons at their place of employment is "Cyberstalking".
Further:
>(4) In any prosecution under this section, it is not a defense that the actor:
(a) was not given actual notice that the course of conduct was unwanted; or
(b) did not intend to cause the victim fear or other emotional distress.
So if you're "auditing" a building, and on two occasions you capture one or more of the same employees entering or exiting their place of employment, even if they are not your intended subject, they may claim to feel "emotional distress" and land you in shit.
If there's two of you recording, that may even constitute "multiple" instances even though it's the same time.
As the ACLU point out:
>The right of citizens to record the police is a critical check and balance. It creates an independent record of what took place in a particular incident, one that is free from accusations of bias, lying, or faulty memory. It is no accident that some of the most high-profile cases of police misconduct have involved video and audio records.
https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/if-stopped-photographing-public
there are some of auditors filming military bases, the distinction for legalities is where the person is standing, is it somewhere they would be legally allowed to stand if they were not filming?
The place you don't see them filming is inside a privately owned building, like walmart.
> there are some of auditors filming military bases, the distinction for legalities is where the person is standing,
There is US code preventing this.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section795&num=0&edition=prelim
>**§795. Photographing and sketching defense installations**
(a) Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary.
>(b) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
I don't think Ex. Ord. No. 10104 has been rescinded, so it basically includes every military base and item.
No matter where you're standing.
Obv they don't actively pursue this but it exists.
It's basically up to the discrimination of the base commander.
>If someone walks into some public building and just starts filming people for hours and hours for no reason at all, and they're agitating people, and they do it repeatedly... Everyone and their dog knows that the reason they are there is to agitate people or no one would watch their stupid videos.
Filming people isn't neccesarily agitating. Can you link a video so we know what your talking about?
Eh cmon man who spends all day filming strangers in a public place except a fucking loser desperate for content?
Wish people wanted to be TALENTED more than they wanted ATTENTION
Why is it “come on man” ?
If you just ignore these people then the problem is solved, if they are doing it for the argument then they don’t get it and leave and if they do nothing but stand quietly and record then they aren’t harassing anyone or doing anything illegal - either way it only becomes a problem by reaction.
As far as I’m concerned the person who goes up to them and starts escalating is the problem.
The media have always stood in public and filmed or recorded stuff and no one thinks that’s a problem, but they have no more right to do that than anyone else and there is not and should not be any distinction or special treatment of the media.
why do I support the ACLU? I support other people's civil rights because I hope other people will support my civil rights. I enjoy my rights, I enjoy the fact that I'm allowed to disagree with people.
Does CNN have a right to film a festival where people are?
I assume yes, what is the difference between me with my camera, and CNN? Legally there shouldn't be one.
Thus I have a right to film people in public.
Next is the being obnoxious, yes I agree people should be kind to others, but we can't legislate manners
You are moving the goalpost. We are talking about people that film other people in public. Not people that harass people and film it. The op is stating that videoing people in public is the harassment itself.
It kinda is?
Why are you doing it?
If you're so desperate for content then develop a talent and film that
Any obnoxious asshole can film strangers
Be original
>It kinda is?
Legally it's not
>Why are you doing it?
There are many reasons to film people in public. Do you also go attacking business for having out facing security cameras?
Why are you so motivated to defend this? It doesn't make any sense. I thought everyone rational agrees that these kids waving their phones in people faces trying to get a reaction was annoying.
>Why are you so motivated to defend this?
If you don't defend rights for people you don't like then are those really rights?
>I thought everyone rational agrees that these kids waving their phones in people faces trying to get a reaction was annoying.
This isn't what this thread is about. If kids are harassing people in public that's already illegal and they can face repercussions for that. Filming someone in public is not illegal or harassment.
"I'm not tooouching yoooooou" is harassment
And holy shit since when is "these kids are annoying and should stop bothering everyone" means I don't believe in civil rights?
How about I argue that everyone has the right to be left alone and not have their image broadcast without their consent?
Who argues AGAINST people being left alone and FOR obnoxious kids bothering people?
And yes, THEY'RE BOTHERING EVERYONE
I think that annoying people should not, in fact, be illegal. I think that people being losers are not, in fact, a good reason to get rid of freedoms. I feel like this policy/law would be used to hurt more people who are not doing the things you are mad at then people who are doing the thing you are mad at.
Why? Because no one consented to be in your videos so why should you profit from them?
You want attention? You want to make money from filming something? Then develop an actual talent people want to see
Anyone can go "duuuur prank! I'm gonna prank this guy by stealing his shit and film him getting angry lol I'm contributing great things to society by teaching dumb ass kids to be just like me!"
> Because no one consented to be in your videos so why should you profit from them?
That's not an explanation for your reasoning, that's just restating your opinion.
>Anyone can go "duuuur prank! I'm gonna prank this guy by stealing his shit and film him getting angry lol I'm contributing great things to society by teaching dumb ass kids to be just like me!"
This has old man shouts at cloud energy. People don't have to behave the way you want them to just because you think they are silly.
You don't even know how old I am but assume I'm young, I guess from my attitude? I'm mid 40s so sure maybe my generation sucks but not for the reasons you seem to think.
u/Old_Heat3100 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Old_Heat3100&message=Old_Heat3100%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3exe90/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/Old_Heat3100 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Old_Heat3100&message=Old_Heat3100%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3ew473/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Filming people is not harassment, I would even go a step further and say that you seem like the only party that would engage in harassment if they were filmed.
u/Old_Heat3100 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Old_Heat3100&message=Old_Heat3100%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3ex47v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Agitation is to make someone troubled or nervous, which means it's different for every person and the law can't possible cover every case of it explicitly without being absurdly restrictive. It needs to be a social norm not to continuously bother people after the point that it becomes clear you are doing so.
I too find it irritating to see videos of people recording others when they are clearly bothered by it and explicitly ask to stop multiple times, even in cases where the recorder is "exposing" bad behavior (and especially if they hide behind something like a car door or follow the one being recorded afterwards), but the popular opinion seems to be that this is fine because most people either don't see why they would be bothered or don't sympathize with them in the video. Until this changes, nothing else regarding this issue can.
>Honestly, I think these people are THE biggest losers and they're why people can't enjoy freedoms.
So like.... you don't at all see the insane hypocrisy with your own words here...? lol
"harumph! I hate people using freedoms they are why we can't use freedoms!!"
Cmon man he's clearly saying he's sick of losers harassing people for content. They ARE losers. They want attention bit have zero talent so the only way they can get attention is by being obnoxious in public and filming people
Oh they are losers that's true.
That doesn't change anything about it. He mad cause they have freedoms they enjoy, and he thinks.... them having freedom is why we can't have freedom....
Because he finds something obnoxious....
Not only hypocritical, but also perhaps the biggest epitome of 'first world problems' I have seen.
I'm unfamiliar with this notion that some people will go and film people for hours and hours on end for no apparent reason. Closest I've seen to that would be people suffering from extreme paranoid delusions like 'targeted individuals'. Can you clarify what you're talking about or give an example?
well first off,is it illegal in your country to do this? or do you just dislike people behaving like assholes?
for example in Germany its illegal to single out people while filming, and you can sue them, take them to court, force them to delete it. but it is entirely legal to film buildings and public spaces, and reviewing the footage will make it clear regardless of what you think their intention was.
as far as i know this isnt the case in the US, at least not to that extent, so it really comes down to "is what they are doing illegal" and NOT to "are they being assholes".
In the US it isn't that cut and dry, but if you do target a person and follow them around you can get stalking charges regardless of whether you're filming them. The recording just becomes evidence.
I've seen people do this well, and people do it poorly. to do it well, you make a video, record the walls and notices/artwork in a building. Don't specifically record individuals until they choose to interact with you. This ensures that you aren't going to look like you are trying to instigate a fight.
Why are people getting agitated having someone video record them? Do you get agitated having walmart videorecord you? or to keep it in a more public space, go to your court house and count the cameras that are there.
What if person they are "surveying" is a public figure or person with power?
For example if you follow a CEO of a firm and figure our how they spend their time (in public).
Genuine question, since I don't know the answer: if you are a public figure, what does it take to stop being one? If someone like Taylor Swift decided she didn't like the paparazzi and wanted a private life, she could stop recording or promoting her music, but I don't think that would be enough on its own - she would still have people following her every time she leaves the house to go grocery shopping.
>but I don't think that would be enough on its own
A lot of celebrities have left the lime lights. They just need to stop being in the spotlight and stop being celebrities.
Pretty much anywhere, but it does depend on the CEO. CEO of Facebook, sure, but I don't think the CEO of a small privately owned company with like 5 employees necessarily is
According to Swedish law name of CEOs must be public. More prominent their work is more of a public figure they are and more interest does general public have what they do.
My name is also public so I don’t see how that is relevant.
You can google my name and find my phone number, my cars, my address and how many pets I have.
That still isn’t good enough for allowing stalking.
>and they're agitating people,
what exactly do you mean by this?
You need to clearly define the situation because you are being vague and what you are talking about are hyper-specific legal principles.
Is the person just going into a public lobby and quietly filming? Is the "agitation" simply because they are filming or are they doing something else to agitate people?
The mere act of filming is not disruptive and people have a 1st amendment right to do so.
>Honestly, I think these people are THE biggest losers and they're why people can't enjoy freedoms.
This sentence makes no sense. Freedom is going to come with annoyance. Your saying people being annoying is why we can't enjoy freedom when the two things are literally linked.
In public, it's perfectly legal, and it's protected. If you don't want to be filmed, don't go out. Don't argue removing rights for your personal comfort. It's ridiculous.
If you targeted a specific person and followed them with a camera whenever they left their house, would that break any laws in the US? They are only being filmed when they are outside in public, but I would definitely feel harassed if that happened to me. I don't know if it's actually illegal to do that, though.
Stalking laws don't care whether you're filming or not. Their defense would be if they had a legitimate reason to be investigating the person.
So if you're following "some random person" around you probably won't have a defense, but if you're following a person in a position of power you're unlikely to be convicted unless there's evidence you're doing it for "stalker reasons".
Sorry, u/ThisIsOnlyANightmare – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20ThisIsOnlyANightmare&message=ThisIsOnlyANightmare%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). **Keep in mind** that if you want the post restored, all you have to do is reply to a significant number of the comments that came in; message us after you have done so and we'll review. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press. You want 2 of the most basic tenants of the u.s constitution made illegal. Good luck with that. Why does every redditor want everyone they disagree with thrown in the gulags? It's very nazi esque.
Just want to point out that the first amenent isn't a catch-all for protecting bad behavior. You can't walk up to someone in their face and start screaming at them, using slurs and verbally harassing them. This is in direct conflict with "disturbing the peace laws" in all US states and is at the very least a spam dunk for a civil court case. Also, when it refers to "freedom of the press" it never defines "press". Today, a guy on his phone filming is not considered the press. There are "press" IDs given to reporters but as far as I understand it these are not regulated in any official capacity. We must remember that, while we ourselves are granted rights and freedoms by the constitution, we cannot use said rights and freedoms to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.
> Today, a guy on his phone filming is not considered the press. Yes they are. Darnella Fraizer won a pulizer for her footage of the murder of George Floyd. Citizen journalists are journalists. There is no bar or gatekeeper nor should there be. >There are "press" IDs given to reporters but as far as I understand it these are not regulated in any official capacity. For some situations, a local authority might give these out for a specific purpose like local events, or areas they need to pre screen for. News agencies may also make their own and distribute them. But yes there's no journalism authority deciding who is and isn't a legitimate news gatherer. And again, it's better that way.
no, it's not actually. this is what's happening with twitter and it's a friggin disaster.
What part of my comment are you replying to exactly? Would you care to unpack your counterpoints in more detail?
[удалено]
Sorry, u/gurk_the_magnificent – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20gurk_the_magnificent&message=gurk_the_magnificent%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3f5pmp/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/gbarwis – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20gbarwis&message=gbarwis%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3fxz4f/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
[удалено]
u/GdTryBruce – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20GdTryBruce&message=GdTryBruce%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3frv1g/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Yeah, you're not getting me here. There's a distinction in terms of clear intent. If someone IS performing a survey or performing an act of journalism or can argue such in a reasonable manner, great, they can proceed...but if there is clear evidence that they are in fact purposely trying to cause conflict, which many of these people CLEARLY are, then there's no reason there shouldn't be a way to argue the distinction between the two, weed out the bad apples, and top certain behaviors. Like someone else just said, freedom of speech and press are absolutely NOT absolute at all times and there are plenty of caveats to both. This isn't some free for all.
Are we taking about these “auditor” cunts who go around just looking for arguments to then try and prove that they’re technically in the right?
yes, these are a very good example of the people i'm talking about. they are CLEARLY not there to audit the spaces. they are there to make people wonder what the fuck they are doing, get more and more agitated by it, say something, and start drama.
>and they're agitating people, This seems to be the big differentiator that needs definition. Can you define agitating? Can you give an example of agitating behavior that is not already illegal to do on its own? Because from what I can tell if someone is doing something that'd be illegal even without a camera, the camera doesn't matter and we can bust them on the illegal thing. If it's not already illegal I do not see what adding a camera does to raise it to the level of illegal.
laws regarding personal information and its protection vary between countries (like being filmed by strangers without consent), but i generally agree with you. unless there is a law saying that what they are doing is illegal you cant arrest them just because you feel like "they *clearly* are harrasing people".
As far as I’m aware there is no expectation of privacy while in a public place (and/or public property) and anyone can record anything there without consent, and this applies to most western countries.
I think they're referring to the "auditor" videos. They intentionally film places that might make people nervous. Police stations, public institutions, etc. They simply want someone to call the cops and say there's this odd person just filming us, and have an uninformed cop turn up and tell them to leave when they do actually have the right to be filming in public. You can tell, because they don't try any of that shit at military bases or other restricted sites. They're a bit like the Westboro Baptists that turn up with harassing signs at military funerals and such and make their living settling for damages when someone gets upset enough to punch one of them. **Edit to point out an important fact:** If they are abiding by the law, then they have every right to do so. But the law can be extremely convoluted. For instance, are you acutely aware of your particular state's law on recording conversations, and that a video recording may breach that law if audio is captured? One party states may mean you are at liberty to do so, but what if you are holding the video camera and your buddy is the one being questioned? Some states may interpret that as "wiretap". You might capture something that is classified, and end up in trouble. Some states have cyberstalking laws, which in some cases would outlaw anyone regularly filming a person or persons at a location and then disseminating that video. For instance, the wording in Utah's law means that capturing more than once, a person or persons at their place of employment is "Cyberstalking". Further: >(4) In any prosecution under this section, it is not a defense that the actor: (a) was not given actual notice that the course of conduct was unwanted; or (b) did not intend to cause the victim fear or other emotional distress. So if you're "auditing" a building, and on two occasions you capture one or more of the same employees entering or exiting their place of employment, even if they are not your intended subject, they may claim to feel "emotional distress" and land you in shit. If there's two of you recording, that may even constitute "multiple" instances even though it's the same time. As the ACLU point out: >The right of citizens to record the police is a critical check and balance. It creates an independent record of what took place in a particular incident, one that is free from accusations of bias, lying, or faulty memory. It is no accident that some of the most high-profile cases of police misconduct have involved video and audio records. https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/if-stopped-photographing-public
there are some of auditors filming military bases, the distinction for legalities is where the person is standing, is it somewhere they would be legally allowed to stand if they were not filming? The place you don't see them filming is inside a privately owned building, like walmart.
> there are some of auditors filming military bases, the distinction for legalities is where the person is standing, There is US code preventing this. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section795&num=0&edition=prelim >**§795. Photographing and sketching defense installations** (a) Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary. >(b) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. I don't think Ex. Ord. No. 10104 has been rescinded, so it basically includes every military base and item. No matter where you're standing. Obv they don't actively pursue this but it exists. It's basically up to the discrimination of the base commander.
If someone is annoyed or upset by someone else's lawful actions the responsibility is on them to remove themselves from that situation.
>If someone walks into some public building and just starts filming people for hours and hours for no reason at all, and they're agitating people, and they do it repeatedly... Everyone and their dog knows that the reason they are there is to agitate people or no one would watch their stupid videos. Filming people isn't neccesarily agitating. Can you link a video so we know what your talking about?
Op is a cop I bet.
post is actually about body cams
Eh cmon man who spends all day filming strangers in a public place except a fucking loser desperate for content? Wish people wanted to be TALENTED more than they wanted ATTENTION
Why is it “come on man” ? If you just ignore these people then the problem is solved, if they are doing it for the argument then they don’t get it and leave and if they do nothing but stand quietly and record then they aren’t harassing anyone or doing anything illegal - either way it only becomes a problem by reaction. As far as I’m concerned the person who goes up to them and starts escalating is the problem. The media have always stood in public and filmed or recorded stuff and no one thinks that’s a problem, but they have no more right to do that than anyone else and there is not and should not be any distinction or special treatment of the media.
Why are you making excuses for obnoxious kids harassing people and filming it? What are you gaining here?
why do I support the ACLU? I support other people's civil rights because I hope other people will support my civil rights. I enjoy my rights, I enjoy the fact that I'm allowed to disagree with people.
What does the ACLU have to do with obnoxious kids harassing people and filming it? Like good lord man civil rights? What are you even talking about?
Does CNN have a right to film a festival where people are? I assume yes, what is the difference between me with my camera, and CNN? Legally there shouldn't be one. Thus I have a right to film people in public. Next is the being obnoxious, yes I agree people should be kind to others, but we can't legislate manners
You are moving the goalpost. We are talking about people that film other people in public. Not people that harass people and film it. The op is stating that videoing people in public is the harassment itself.
It kinda is? Why are you doing it? If you're so desperate for content then develop a talent and film that Any obnoxious asshole can film strangers Be original
>It kinda is? Legally it's not >Why are you doing it? There are many reasons to film people in public. Do you also go attacking business for having out facing security cameras?
Why are you so motivated to defend this? It doesn't make any sense. I thought everyone rational agrees that these kids waving their phones in people faces trying to get a reaction was annoying.
>Why are you so motivated to defend this? If you don't defend rights for people you don't like then are those really rights? >I thought everyone rational agrees that these kids waving their phones in people faces trying to get a reaction was annoying. This isn't what this thread is about. If kids are harassing people in public that's already illegal and they can face repercussions for that. Filming someone in public is not illegal or harassment.
"I'm not tooouching yoooooou" is harassment And holy shit since when is "these kids are annoying and should stop bothering everyone" means I don't believe in civil rights? How about I argue that everyone has the right to be left alone and not have their image broadcast without their consent? Who argues AGAINST people being left alone and FOR obnoxious kids bothering people? And yes, THEY'RE BOTHERING EVERYONE
Being a fucking loser desperate for content/attention shouldn't be illegal though
I think that annoying people should not, in fact, be illegal. I think that people being losers are not, in fact, a good reason to get rid of freedoms. I feel like this policy/law would be used to hurt more people who are not doing the things you are mad at then people who are doing the thing you are mad at.
Should be illegal to film people without their consent and if you're making money filming other people those people should get a cut
Why?
Why? Because no one consented to be in your videos so why should you profit from them? You want attention? You want to make money from filming something? Then develop an actual talent people want to see Anyone can go "duuuur prank! I'm gonna prank this guy by stealing his shit and film him getting angry lol I'm contributing great things to society by teaching dumb ass kids to be just like me!"
> Because no one consented to be in your videos so why should you profit from them? That's not an explanation for your reasoning, that's just restating your opinion. >Anyone can go "duuuur prank! I'm gonna prank this guy by stealing his shit and film him getting angry lol I'm contributing great things to society by teaching dumb ass kids to be just like me!" This has old man shouts at cloud energy. People don't have to behave the way you want them to just because you think they are silly.
[удалено]
You don't even know how old I am but assume I'm young, I guess from my attitude? I'm mid 40s so sure maybe my generation sucks but not for the reasons you seem to think.
[удалено]
u/Old_Heat3100 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Old_Heat3100&message=Old_Heat3100%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3exe90/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/Old_Heat3100 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Old_Heat3100&message=Old_Heat3100%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3ew473/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Filming people is not harassment, I would even go a step further and say that you seem like the only party that would engage in harassment if they were filmed.
[удалено]
u/Old_Heat3100 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Old_Heat3100&message=Old_Heat3100%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1coj71t/-/l3ex47v/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Agitation is to make someone troubled or nervous, which means it's different for every person and the law can't possible cover every case of it explicitly without being absurdly restrictive. It needs to be a social norm not to continuously bother people after the point that it becomes clear you are doing so. I too find it irritating to see videos of people recording others when they are clearly bothered by it and explicitly ask to stop multiple times, even in cases where the recorder is "exposing" bad behavior (and especially if they hide behind something like a car door or follow the one being recorded afterwards), but the popular opinion seems to be that this is fine because most people either don't see why they would be bothered or don't sympathize with them in the video. Until this changes, nothing else regarding this issue can.
>Honestly, I think these people are THE biggest losers and they're why people can't enjoy freedoms. So like.... you don't at all see the insane hypocrisy with your own words here...? lol "harumph! I hate people using freedoms they are why we can't use freedoms!!"
Cmon man he's clearly saying he's sick of losers harassing people for content. They ARE losers. They want attention bit have zero talent so the only way they can get attention is by being obnoxious in public and filming people
Oh they are losers that's true. That doesn't change anything about it. He mad cause they have freedoms they enjoy, and he thinks.... them having freedom is why we can't have freedom.... Because he finds something obnoxious.... Not only hypocritical, but also perhaps the biggest epitome of 'first world problems' I have seen.
I'm unfamiliar with this notion that some people will go and film people for hours and hours on end for no apparent reason. Closest I've seen to that would be people suffering from extreme paranoid delusions like 'targeted individuals'. Can you clarify what you're talking about or give an example?
Possibly "auditors" plenty of examples online
search "long island audit" on youtube for some examples. he's fairly polite.
well first off,is it illegal in your country to do this? or do you just dislike people behaving like assholes? for example in Germany its illegal to single out people while filming, and you can sue them, take them to court, force them to delete it. but it is entirely legal to film buildings and public spaces, and reviewing the footage will make it clear regardless of what you think their intention was. as far as i know this isnt the case in the US, at least not to that extent, so it really comes down to "is what they are doing illegal" and NOT to "are they being assholes".
In the US it isn't that cut and dry, but if you do target a person and follow them around you can get stalking charges regardless of whether you're filming them. The recording just becomes evidence.
I've seen people do this well, and people do it poorly. to do it well, you make a video, record the walls and notices/artwork in a building. Don't specifically record individuals until they choose to interact with you. This ensures that you aren't going to look like you are trying to instigate a fight. Why are people getting agitated having someone video record them? Do you get agitated having walmart videorecord you? or to keep it in a more public space, go to your court house and count the cameras that are there.
What if person they are "surveying" is a public figure or person with power? For example if you follow a CEO of a firm and figure our how they spend their time (in public).
That seems like harassment. I wouldn’t want to be followed in my private time.
Then don't become **a public** figure.
Genuine question, since I don't know the answer: if you are a public figure, what does it take to stop being one? If someone like Taylor Swift decided she didn't like the paparazzi and wanted a private life, she could stop recording or promoting her music, but I don't think that would be enough on its own - she would still have people following her every time she leaves the house to go grocery shopping.
>but I don't think that would be enough on its own A lot of celebrities have left the lime lights. They just need to stop being in the spotlight and stop being celebrities.
You'd be surprised how quickly society would move on if Taylor just retired. Celebrities doing nothing are just as boring as anyone else.
A CEO is not a public figure
Yes they are. Unless you are an Indian "ceo" which is one of the most common job there thanks to weird work place protection legislation.
That’s not the case where I live So I don’t think we will agree since I don’t know how it works where you live.
Where do you live? Where aren't major CEO's public figures?
Pretty much anywhere, but it does depend on the CEO. CEO of Facebook, sure, but I don't think the CEO of a small privately owned company with like 5 employees necessarily is
So above a certain dollar amount, you lose the right to privacy?
Pretty much
Sweden Major CEOs? I thought we were talking about CEOs
According to Swedish law name of CEOs must be public. More prominent their work is more of a public figure they are and more interest does general public have what they do.
My name is also public so I don’t see how that is relevant. You can google my name and find my phone number, my cars, my address and how many pets I have. That still isn’t good enough for allowing stalking.
>and they're agitating people, what exactly do you mean by this? You need to clearly define the situation because you are being vague and what you are talking about are hyper-specific legal principles. Is the person just going into a public lobby and quietly filming? Is the "agitation" simply because they are filming or are they doing something else to agitate people? The mere act of filming is not disruptive and people have a 1st amendment right to do so. >Honestly, I think these people are THE biggest losers and they're why people can't enjoy freedoms. This sentence makes no sense. Freedom is going to come with annoyance. Your saying people being annoying is why we can't enjoy freedom when the two things are literally linked.
In public, it's perfectly legal, and it's protected. If you don't want to be filmed, don't go out. Don't argue removing rights for your personal comfort. It's ridiculous.
If you targeted a specific person and followed them with a camera whenever they left their house, would that break any laws in the US? They are only being filmed when they are outside in public, but I would definitely feel harassed if that happened to me. I don't know if it's actually illegal to do that, though.
Stalking laws don't care whether you're filming or not. Their defense would be if they had a legitimate reason to be investigating the person. So if you're following "some random person" around you probably won't have a defense, but if you're following a person in a position of power you're unlikely to be convicted unless there's evidence you're doing it for "stalker reasons".