SJWs harass and censor a reporter for trying to take pictures....viral video!

[Punk Hazard]

Is it really the way it is in the US? Kinda strange. So only one person in a public place needs to say that he doesn't want to be filmed and that's it? So you can't film in a public place if people are against that? Isn't it against the law to prohibit that? :/

Nope. And no, it's not like that. Say I'm filming the white house and one person there says "I don't wanna be filmed." All I have to do is turn my camera away from him so that he isn't included in any shots, and it's good.

If a group of people collectively say "We don't want to be filmed," I can't film those people. If those people are surrounding the place, then I'd have to either find a different group of people who are okay with it, or find a way to film without including them in the shots.

 

[Multiply]

The fact that most of the people there were not actually students at the university.

Also, the fact that the kid leading this protest is the son of a multi-millionaire railroad owner.



ABC is the local news affiliate and was not really covering the news story. None of the local or national news outlets really had much in the way of reporters on the ground.

The pictures came from a few of Mizzou's own media students - such as this one - who was a reporter for the school paper.



It's a public space. No one has the right to deny him free passage, nor is he prohibited from recording in public.



One who is interested in documenting the event that is supposed to be raising awareness to the issues experienced by the people in the protest.



He was one of the only reporters there.

The fact is that these protesters were doing this to everyone. They just formed a circle and pushed everyone out of the way to make a 'safe space' for 'blacks only.'

Frankly, if you don't understand how that's trouble in and of itself, then you're a grape ripe for the press.

You must be registered for see images

Keep reachin' my brother.

 

[Robot Boy]

I did. When I say I don't know why it was made into such a big deal, I mean I don't get why there needed to be an argument and yelling and chanting. The second they said "We don't want to filmed," he should have said "Okay" and walked away and found other people who were okay with being filmed. His insistent "FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS I CAN FILM THO" just made the entire situation so much more stupider than it should have been.

Also, after watching it a second time, what the ****? They said the students were walking in that direction and he'd need to move, so what does he do when a large group of people is walking towards him? Well, what any reasonable person would do and just stand there like a moron and say "UH YOU'RE PUSHING ME."

Seriously, whoever is behind that camera seems like they realized they found trouble and instigated it further because it gave them a story and knew it'd give them views.

That's not what I meant, but thanks for confirming something for me.

You must be registered for see images

Keep reachin' my brother.

He ain't your "brother" and neither am I. Also explain yourself. What do you mean by keep reaching? What is it that he's actually reaching for?

 

[Multiply]

He ain't your "brother" and neither am I. Also explain yourself. What do you mean by keep reaching? What is it that he's actually reaching for?

What did you even have to do with that post?

 

[Robot Boy]

What did you even have to do with that post?

Just throwing that out there. Also my question.

 

[Multiply]

Just throwing that out there. Also my question.

Oh okay... :lol

To answer your question he's saying things that he has no evidence for. Thus, reaching or grasping for straws.

 

[Punk Hazard]

That's not what I meant, but thanks for confirming something for me.

Elaborate then.

 

[Robot Boy]

Elaborate then.

There's no need to elaborate on something that's obvious.

Oh okay... :lol

To answer your question he's saying things that he has no evidence for. Thus, reaching or grasping for straws.

All right, got it.

 

[Punk Hazard]

There's no need to elaborate on something that's obvious.

Except it isn't obvious. You're being highly vague, especially on the "confirming something for me" part. If you aren't going to explain what you're talking about, why are you posting?

 

[Robot Boy]

Except it isn't obvious. You're being highly vague, especially on the "confirming something for me" part. If you aren't going to explain what you're talking about, why are you posting?

Yeah it is. Don't worry this will be my last post.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Yeah it is. Don't worry this will be my last post.

Seems like you didn't get my post and got caught with your foot in your mouth /: oh well

 

[Aim64C]

Is it really the way it is in the US? Kinda strange. So only one person in a public place needs to say that he doesn't want to be filmed and that's it? So you can't film in a public place if people are against that? Isn't it against the law to prohibit that? :/

It's a complicated legal mess because people don't understand that the U.S. does not actually have personal rights - but constitutional restrictions upon government. So, legal policies have arisen to try and grant people 'rights' that they can leverage against each other.

Which has the predictable effect of people trying to leverage themselves against those they don't like to get them thrown in jail.

In a public space, you are free to record whomever and whatever you want.

There are, however, a few caveats. If you are recording someone and making false claims that are damaging or disparaging against them (or unsubstantiated claims) - then the person can file a suit against you for slander or libel, respectively.

Recording someone and then profiting from the footage can, also, end up with a lawsuit against you because you were profiting from their image without their consent. In this sense - that persons' image can be thought of as a sort of copyright or trademark that must be effectively licensed via contract. Large companies avoid this, while most citizens who post youtube videos pay no attention to it... and no one really thinks to try and pursue the revenues people make from youtube videos (and even if they did, the cost to prosecute would likely exceed any potential compensation mandated by the court).

The other issue is that when you pair a person's photo with a name or address, it can constitute an issue in terms of Personal Identification - increasing a person's risk of identity theft or other such things. In such a case, the person or the guardian of that person can ask to have the image removed, and can contact law enforcement to bring legal action against those who fail to remove an image or video that couples these (within some constraints).

Of course - most of these involve a court system, which involves a plaintiff and a defendant who must give full IDs to the judge. These groups do -not- want to have to submit themselves to the public record. Not that the media would cover the fact that half of them are 35 years old and don't live in Missouri, much less attend a university.

 

[Multiply]

Of course - most of these involve a court system, which involves a plaintiff and a defendant who must give full IDs to the judge. These groups do -not- want to have to submit themselves to the public record. Not that the media would cover the fact that half of them are 35 years old and don't live in Missouri, much less attend a university.

Did you find any evidence yet?