"Being capable of self-restraint" does not automatically imply you are always, in any circumstance, capable of self-restraint. Conversely, finding yourself in a

"Being capable of self-restraint" does not automatically imply you are always, in any circumstance, capable of self-restraint. Conversely, finding yourself in a public argument of this magnitude does not automatically imply you are incapable of self-restraint. There's a lot of shades of grey here. People are emotional beings and that sometimes gets in the way of rationality. I've never been involved in a public fight, but I can readily imagine that happening, given the right person and the right provocation. I was attempting to elicit some empathy. A little consideration for the shortcomings of others goes a long way. I certainly don't agree with your assessment of 'the bounds of privacy society is prepared to accept'. That's shifting the responsibility for your personal response onto 'society'. You are responsible for your actions, independent of what 'society' feels about it. That something is possible does not give you, you personally, the moral prerogative to act upon it. That's a naturalistic fallacy: taking the state of affairs as it is in the world and labelling it 'right', because it is the case. This guy should not have tweeted and photographed the fighting couple, even if five other people were doing it simultaneously and even if they enabled it and even if they should have realized it could (would?) happen.