General Discussion

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)

37. Not quite. One law was struck down as being too broad in scope.

Sat Nov 1, 2014, 10:12 PM

Nov 2014

The judges pointed to a more narrow statute in the same law dealing with bathroom shots that was actually narrowly tailored, and was therefore constitutional.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Google fined $2000 for street view clevage shot [View all] scarystuffyo Nov 2014 OP

the lady had the right to not have that pic on the internet La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2014 #1

Didn't you know? djean111 Nov 2014 #2

Actually, it's pretty simple to have Google blank you off street view. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #7

What's the danger if someone sees your license plate number? Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #12

No idea, she just didn't like it. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #19

You Used To Be Able Get The Address ozone82 Nov 2014 #34

Rebecca Schaeffer. Fawke Em Nov 2014 #48

Why would you have an expectation of privacy Codeine Nov 2014 #22

Umm, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public bobclark86 Nov 2014 #35

Umm.. you have no right to not be photographed while in public. X_Digger Nov 2014 #36

If... GummyBearz Nov 2014 #3

I agree, she had the right to not have that pic on the internet uppityperson Nov 2014 #4

So if you are in a baseball game or other public place in a revealing outfit Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #13

there are times we are in public knowing that cameras will be around (sports events, music events) La Lioness Priyanka Nov 2014 #14

+1 woo me with science Nov 2014 #16

Legally, sitting on your porch in full public view, you have no "expectation of privacy", Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #17

Exactly. Jamastiene Nov 2014 #44

Doesn't the use of the ticket waive certain claims of privacy? Orrex Nov 2014 #26

There's a photo I took where the neighbor is in the background watering their lawn... Drunken Irishman Nov 2014 #20

You of course are totally incorrect about this. nt Logical Nov 2014 #30

here in mercuryblues Nov 2014 #5

I think those rulings were a pretty narrow decision. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #8

Yes, that was women sitting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #15

Apparently mercuryblues Nov 2014 #21

Well those are icky. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #23

exactly mercuryblues Nov 2014 #24

We didn't have to specify the part to blur. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #27

I'd like to know how to get them to make my not searchable too. Jamastiene Nov 2014 #46

I think we did it entirely online, for free. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Nov 2014 #53

Massachusetts fixed that issue last March. FWIW. MADem Nov 2014 #52

That law was struck down by the courts because it was too broad davidn3600 Nov 2014 #33

Not quite. One law was struck down as being too broad in scope. X_Digger Nov 2014 #37

I like Canada's way better too. Jamastiene Nov 2014 #57

I was going to Recommend this thread, but not with the Jamastiene Nov 2014 #6

Well, anyone one is public property when appearing in the public. nt Logical Nov 2014 #31

To do with as any man pleases? Jamastiene Nov 2014 #38

How do you propose to ban it? Nt Logical Nov 2014 #42

It should be illegal to take pictures of someone else's private property or them Jamastiene Nov 2014 #43

Did you get permission to post a picture of a seven-year old girl on the internet? Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #45

That picture was already in the public domain, already published in a paper. Jamastiene Nov 2014 #47

Bullshit....... Logical Nov 2014 #51

And I don't want to live in your country. Jamastiene Nov 2014 #56

LOL, you have not put 10 minutes of thought to enforcing what you proposed. Impossible. nt Logical Nov 2014 #59

Wonder mercuryblues Nov 2014 #54

Women don't stand a chance. n/t Jamastiene Nov 2014 #58

Just wait until . . . Brigid Nov 2014 #9

Kind of ironic that when I click the link you provided I get to see this woman's cleavage. Nye Bevan Nov 2014 #10

Kind of like a Hidden Post on DU. alphafemale Nov 2014 #40

Bad decision by the judge VScott Nov 2014 #11

This is Canada customerserviceguy Nov 2014 #29

I can see making Google take down such pictures upon request... Silent3 Nov 2014 #18

Streisand Effect chrisa Nov 2014 #25

I have to wonder - Did she give Gizmodo permission to show off her pic? Lancero Nov 2014 #28

No need to I am sure. nt Logical Nov 2014 #32

I am starting to think that a burqa might not be such a bad fucking idea after all. djean111 Nov 2014 #39

A burqa is fine ... JustABozoOnThisBus Nov 2014 #50

$2000? Google probably made that in 1/10th of a second. alphafemale Nov 2014 #41

Down the blouse = bad, but up the skirt = good? joeybee12 Nov 2014 #49

Up-skirt pics are the height of vile behavior, but... Orrex Nov 2014 #55

Holy shit! Is that Poppy Bush outside a Dallas police station in 1963? hughee99 Nov 2014 #60