Husband beats wife, it's a crime. He should be punished. Neighbor sneaks into house, taping husband beating wife, then publishes it online as part of taki

Husband beats wife, it's a crime. He should be punished. Neighbor sneaks into house, taping husband beating wife, then publishes it online as part of taking apart husband's run at mayor, it's still a crime, but it's also a political stunt. The two are not mutually exclusive. You're also ignoring this angle of it: Husband is never charged. Crimes are swept under the rug. Husband lobbies for a law that specifically makes it an extra crime to film husbands beating their wifes due to 'invasion of privacy.' Also, your original analogy is flawed. If someone lying on a resume is not the same as someone that is breaking and entering. The analogy would go more like: Husband beats wife, it's a crime. He should be punished. Concerned 3rd party gets hired on as a day laborer, cutting said husband's grass. Films husband beating wife through window (for the sake of argument, let's say that it's impossible to see the windows from public land -- e.g. a 20-acre estate). You're also cutting a huge chunk out of investigative journalism. How does one discover what goes on behind closed doors without going undercover? It's not like filming these abuses doesn't already come with risks. If someone is beating an animal to death because (e.g.) it has a broken leg and can't walk, is it really such a leap that this person might severely beat someone discovered to be filming it?