Opinion It should be legal to whack anyone's phones away if they're recording you without your consent

[Misanthropist]

It seems to be a trend (?) for Tik tok assholes to record you without your consent and uploading it on social media. Everyone's worst nightmare! So whacking their phones/cameras away with brute force should be legalized to discourage them from doing it to you and your family members. Thoughts?

A Melbourne woman says she feels like clickbait after she was filmed without her consent for a TikTok video that has now been viewed more than 57 million times.

But TikTok creator Harrison Pawluk's team said the video was filmed legally and was "designed to spread love and compassion" and not "cause anyone concern".

*Maree — who has withheld her surname to maintain her privacy — told ABC Radio Melbourne she was filmed in a public place receiving flowers from Mr Pawluk several weeks ago.

The video was posted on Mr Pawluk's TikTok account with the caption "I hope this made her day better" and the hashtag "#wholesome".

It has since gone viral on the social media app, collecting 57 million views and 10.9 million likes.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-14/tiktok-video-maree-melbourne-flowers/101228418

TLDR; Poor lady was offered free flowers by an asshole to show how "nice" he is and didn't realize his friends were recording them from distance. Then, she discovered it later when it went "viral" on Tik Tok.

 

[Jake the Muss]

Agreed.

 

[fungi]

Yeah, this shit is re-donk-you-loss!!!
Dunno about smacking the phones, but suing the tiktokers' pants off should be legalized.

 

[jamel]

Legalizing physical violence?!

Oh yes…these hands love this idea!!!

 

[Fox by the Sea]

agreed on the principle.
major asskicking option if it's grief porn bros doing it. you don't have to be directly involved. see a dude doing it for net clicks, beat his ass

 

[AWilder]

Nope. If you are in public you have no expectation of privacy, at least in the USA.

https://artrepreneur.com/journal/artbusiness/is-street-photography-legal/?amp=1

 

[Confucamus]

Tough issue to navigate. Somebody makes a Tok Tok video of you slipping on some ice and it's funny enough to go viral with 20 million views, that would suck for anybody. Especially if the person who filmed and posted it is making money off of it. What is the recourse for that? It's extremely difficult to get videos taken down, especially if they go viral. I've definitely come across videos on reddit, like r/publicfreakout, where I'm certain the subject of the video would not want that online. We've all had bad days where we acted our worst, and we've all taken embarrassing falls. I don't know the right answer here, but physical violence will never be it.

Edit: Spelling

 

[genecop]

Sure, as long as the city street cameras and the banks fall into the same category..

 

[25 characters]

 

[Contempt]

Fill the street with uppercuts!!!

 

[Renard]

This is very common. Like you'll have a video on YT of someone giving away money, or painting somebody's house for free, etc. The comments are gushing over it "OMG such a nice person! We need more of you in the world!" But the reality is that those videos get a ton of views and the content creator gets multiple times back their time or money investment. Pretending to be a good person is very profitable.

 

[SandisLL]

Sure, as long as the city street cameras and the banks fall into the same category..

IMHO TS is illogical and crazy.

Almost all mobile phones now does have cameras.
It is impoasible to tell is someone recording you or maybe he is doing somtehing else. Mobile phone now is used as small computer for multiple purposes...
Ppl are literally " living in their phones ".

So normal outcome will be: TS in fist day maybe will attack 10 or even 30 ppl on the street and....for sure will be placed in mental clinic to evalue his condition and judge will be interested what to do with such guy after expertise will be done....

 

[Contempt]

If that weedy little hipster douche kicked me like that he's taking a beatdown.

 

[SandisLL]

This is very common. Like you'll have a video on YT of someone giving away money, or painting somebody's house for free, etc. The comments are gushing over it "OMG such a nice person! We need more of you in the world!" But the reality is that those videos get a ton of views and the content creator gets multiple times back their time or money investment. Pretending to be a good person is very profitable.

It is however this doesn't ends with videos or pictures.
Covid theme. War. Popular themes for YT channels owners.


Sadly for some ppl is common practice to donate for something in order to get his name listed in charity's webpage etc...things...
Btw some politicians are doing this before municipal elections etc. ..

 

[Ruprecht]

Nah. It's the same as current affairs shows that ambush people outside their homes or at the front of courts, or the paparazzi with celebrities.
There's no right not to be filmed in public or for that film not to be broadcast.
In fact they will typically hold copyright to the images/video they've taken of you.
While it's absolutely up to you to establish the privacy you desire these days, there is no more expectation of privacy, you'll rarely be justified in using violence.

 

[Anewt]

Nope..

Wouldn't prevent me from doing it in certain situations tho

 

[Fergelmince]

It seems to be a trend (?) for Tik tok assholes to record you without your consent and uploading it on social media. Everyone's worst nightmare! So whacking their phones/cameras away with brute force should be legalized to discourage them from doing it to you and your family members. Thoughts?


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-14/tiktok-video-maree-melbourne-flowers/101228418

TLDR; Poor lady was offered free flowers by an asshole to show how "nice" he is and didn't realize his friends were recording them from distance. Then, she discovered it later when it went "viral" on Tik Tok.

Unfortunately, at least in the US, I think that would be seen as assault and property damage. They state in the article that there is no right to privacy in public, and that's the case in the US, but I'd like to see a device you can switch on if you catch someone filming you and it will power down their phone so it stops working.

 

[tenniswhiz]

Nope. If you are in public you have no expectation of privacy, at least in the USA.

https://artrepreneur.com/journal/artbusiness/is-street-photography-legal/?amp=1

Germany has better laws:
https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany

“
What happens if I don't follow the rules?
The punishment is a fine, or up to 2 years in prison1, 2. People rarely go to prison, but fines and lawsuits are common1. In some cases, your camera can be confiscated1.

The subject of the photo can sue for damages1. They have 3 years to do this1. The 3 year period starts from the last time the picture was distributed1. Both the photographer and the publisher (including websites) can be sued1. You might have to pay for the victim's legal costs1, 2.”

 

[lifelessheap]

If you are in PUBLIC, you have no expectation of privacy. If you want privacy you must make it yourself! Stay home. Freedom of the Press means EVERYTHING you can see in public can be recorded. Every citizen is a citizen journalist because of the 1st Amendment.

If you don't know your rights you don't have them. If you don't use them you don't have them. If you don't like them don't go in public. You and I literally own public spaces. I will record in places that I own.


Annoying c-words have the right to record as well.

Feel free to move if you don't like it.

 

[HereticBD]

Nah. It's the same as current affairs shows that ambush people outside their homes or at the front of courts, or the paparazzi with celebrities.
There's no right not to be filmed in public or for that film not to be broadcast.

Not sure about that. You have to get releases under certain circumstances. I'm not 100% sure on what those circumstances are, but I imagine it has something to with profiting from from it. You'll see faces blurred out on "reality" based shows, like "The Eric Andre Show" for instance, because they couldn't get releases from those people, even if they were just in the background. They didn't give their consent to be broadcast, and could sue if they showed their faces on TV.