3 ms·
Again, you're taking a very naïve view of my position by presenting extreme cases and saying "look what will happen!" In actuality, courts will continue to exe
by maaku 15y ago
Again, you're taking a very naïve view of my position by presenting extreme cases and saying "look what will happen!"
In actuality, courts will continue to exercise their right to interpret the vagaries of the law on a case-by-case basis and to set precedents for fair use.
> IMO what you're suggesting is a complete overreaching of privacy rights, and would make this society even more litigious and difficult to navigate than it is already.
And I feel we would be better off for it. Maybe we'll just have to leave it at that.
- danso 15y agoExactly how would we be better off for it? How many instances has a person's image been legally used to his/her detriment? Compare that to how many instances photos of unwilling (or unaware) subjects have helped society? Any kind of restriction on a right leads to a chilling of even legal exercises of that right. That's why it is legal to publish a lie in America. Not because our justice system encourages the publication of lies, but because any overreaching rule would people from publishing the truth out of fear of being sued on a technicality.