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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07 2016, @10:29PM
First, what Dani Mathers did is reprehensible, and she should absolutely be shamed (and/or ostracized) from society as a result.
With that being said, should she have any *legal* repercussions for this? I want to say it should be illegal, but I'm having a hard time drawing a line here in regard to free speech. This was no incitement to immediate violence (or even long-term violence), or indeed promoting to any overtly illegal action.
So given "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...'' why should what she did be illegal?
Remember, free speech attacks always finds the scoundrels to attack... so is there a bright line between this and a photograph of a news reporter (or indeed a politician) taking bribe money?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 08 2016, @02:12PM
She certainly shouldn't be charged for the photo -- she should be charged for trespassing or something along those lines. If a gym specifically chose to allow photography in their locker room, there would be no problem at all with what she did. If they don't allow it and she did it anyway, then you charge her for trespassing. Of course, they probably had no posted policy, they *might* have some written privacy policy, but most likely it's going to be a matter of culture -- in the absence of a formal policy there's still a cultural understanding that her actions are prohibited unless explicitly authorized.
There's also whatever the hell got Google to blur faces in Street View...I'm not sure if that's a law or just a policy they adopted to avoid a law being created though. Could argue something like copyright too (ie, a person owns their own image) but I'm not a big fan of that to begin with...
Of course, it could all be handled as a civil matter too. The woman who got photographed can sue the gym for damages, the gym can revoke the membership of the woman who took the photo, maybe even sue her too, but ultimately I guess it's their responsibility to enforce their rules on their property.