SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the what-you-post-online-is-around-forever dept.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37882973
Los Angeles police have charged Playboy model Dani Mathers over a "body-shaming" image she took of an older woman in a gym locker room. The picture of the naked 70-year-old was taken in LA Fitness in July without her consent and posted on social media. She uploaded the photo to Snapchat alongside one of herself and the caption: "If I can't unsee this then you can't either". Ms Mathers faces a charge of invasion of privacy. She could face up to six months in jail and a $1,000 (£800) fine if convicted.
Ms Mathers, 29, apologised soon after uploading the image, saying she thought her Snapchat post had been a private conversation and acknowledging that "body-shaming" is wrong. However, her lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, is quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying his client did nothing illegal, neither invading anyone's privacy nor violating any laws. Announcing the decision to charge the model, Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer took aim at "body-shaming", calling it "humiliating, with often painful, long-term consequences".
(Score: 2) by Max Hyre on Monday November 07 2016, @01:31AM
If you don't have an ``expectation of privacy'' in a locker room (at least from anyone not in said locker room), we're in a whole 'nother world.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Monday November 07 2016, @06:02AM
That is such a fucking bullshit test. The moment everybody's privacy is violated, and we possess the technology, some fucking douchenozzle starts promulgating that *he* doesn't feel there is an expectation of privacy, and all of the sudden there isn't? How the fuck do we have a legal test so obviously vulnerable to Overton Window type behavior?
Fuck that. They don't get to shift the expectation of privacy away just because of how many offenders there are, and if it is reasonable. This isn't the elasticity clause of the Constitution, but a basic principle regarding our human rights.
At no time, ever, regardless of technology, regardless of the presence of assholes, is the expectation of privacy missing from any bathrooms, shared bathrooms, showers, dressing rooms, and places otherwise where people disrobe and get naked.
WTF does a really good job of describing that lawyer's statement. Perhaps there wasn't a law, but there sure as fuck was an expectation of privacy. I'm sure the vast majority of people reading about her situation would've expected privacy in that same situation themselves.
We need Constitutional Amendments mandating prison time for serious offenses against our privacy, and privacy violated on private property needs to become differing levels of a felony.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.