Caught on Camera: Union Nurse Goon Hits, Shoves and Harasses GOP Supporter at Rally

[cobrompton]

What a bunch of children on both sides.

[InstaZen25]

If those guys aren't goons, I don't know what is. You can't complain about a camera being in your face if you are sticking a sign in someone's face to block their camera. All in a public place.

[TheStfu1000]

@InstaZen25 the question is are you allowed to film someone/group in public without them giving you consent.

[TheStfu1000]

you aren't allowed to film without willingnes. when you look at someone they're consenting for you to look at them not for everyone to look at them which is what happens if you film them.

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 You're wrong. YOu've been listening to too many police officers.......which are just different versions of the same union thuggery.

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes your comment makes little sense.

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 Anyone can film you in public. They can't put it on TV or receive any form of compensation for your image without your consent. However, filming doucebags in public isn't a violation of any sort.

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes wasnt' actually asking you but... they can't put it on tv. that means they can't put it on youtube either. it's not just about monetary terms, they'd have to ask for you permission to show it to anyone else. and what's the point of filming if you're not going to show it to anyone else. and if you're not going to show it to anyone else and just watch it yoruself thats a little weird. so surely you're not alloewd to film anyone in public unless they give you consent..

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 Wrong again. Youtube is not considered commercial advertising. Television IS considered commercial advertising. You do not have a right to expect privacy in public. Cops don't have it, you don't have it, nobody has it.

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes you mean wrong for the first time as my previous comment was merely a question. so dont be a douche like that. its a complex issue so dont speak so matter of factly anyway. lets help each other learn about it. public space is owned by everyone the public. so everyone makes conditions as to what one can do in it by majority rule?

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 Okay. I'll back off..for the moment. I didn't realize you had posed a question, although it struck me as rhetorical at the time. It isn't really complex, unless you're talking to government employees. Law enforcement and government employees are coming tot he realization that they have NO right to privacy, while in public. That's as it should be. They've backed way off on arresting people for videos ofthem as they are getting sued left and right by the ACLU.

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes how could you think it rhetorical when its direclty related to the statements you're making? i agree government dont have privacy when in public and really we should be able to see all their salaries and all work related stuff they do if we want because public pay for them/who they represent. i didnt realise government people could get sued? also why do you think you can film someone in public and show it to others without their consent whats the reasoning?

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 Govt people can get sued, but it's hard to do unless the department they work for throws them under the buss. People sue police departments and officers all the time, even when their actions have been found justified under their own policies and guidelines. AS far as the general public is concerned, public space is just that...public. It would irrational to think you have any expectancy of privacy in a public place. Many people are irrational.

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 Basically, if you're in public, you're part of the public space and there are no real limits to the acquisition of images or sounds in a public space. Private, meaning you aren't going to use the data to make a profit. Showing images to other people, either here on Youtube or at home does not constitute commercialization of those images. Hence, you don't need their permission.

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 Do you advocate the actions of the asshole in the video that assaults the other person's property and/or person for a perceived civil grievance? I think that's the more important matter.

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes remember im literally just speaking to you to get a better understanding of the more general issue. so im advocating anything in teh video. you seem to suggest that you have rights to stuff as long it doesn't involve gaining profit. rights aren't purely decided economically. surely you don't have a right to decide who i am being showed to. if i dont want you looking at me in a public space i can just walk away but if you've filmed me then it's too late for me to stop others seeing me.

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 Naturally, there are laws that exist to prevent someone from harassing you. However, they are very subjective. Taking video of you in public would not constitute harassment if you're just standing around. If you turn away, so be it. That is your choice. The fact someone has captured your image on a camera isn't harassment. Again, if you're in a public space, you have no reason to expect privacy or anonymity, image wise. Those are the rules of the land, not my rules.

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes when you say these are the rules of the land where do you get your sources from? the question is should one have to turn away and stay away from a person with a camera (if desired) or should the person with the camera have to refrain from catching them on camera if told it isn't wanted. my main argument being that if you get someone on camera, the film becomes a possession far more tangible than merely looking at someone in public. and even though it's not used 4 gain it c be exchanged.

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 The Supreme Court of the United States. If a person does not wish to be videotaped, they can leave the area, leave the area or leave the area. Your arguments sounds like those of Native Indians that were worried their souls would be captured by still photos. Where do you live? What country?

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes my arguments dont come from any personal agenda really. england. put it this way i dont think you're allowed to film random individuals in the publci without their consent. for practical reasons that individual doesnt know whether you're going to use it for commercial gain and therefore doesnt know whether they should be giving consent.

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 Oh. I wish you had said so. I wasn't sure you were from the US, but the questions you asked seemed to indicate otherwise. I'm not sure what the rules are in England. In the United States, it is presumed you know the laws, if you're the one taking the pictures. If you break the laws, you subject yourself to possible civil suits for punitive and/or compensatory damages..usually both. So, everyone is expected to know what you can and cannot do and follow those rules.

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes why did you wish i had said so? what's your profession? put it this way if yuo're on a train and the person sitting opposite you starts filming you and those sitting next to you and you don't want to be filmed surely he should stop filming. it's like you wouldn't allow someone to follow someone else around if they didnt want. it would be unfair to say oh that person can just keep walking away. so if you have a right to space you have a right to you being filmed. filming protestors's ok.

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 If I had know you weren't a US citizen, I would have responded differently. If a person setting next to you on a train starts filming you, get up and leave or just accept it. It may be obnoxious, but it isn't illegal. Following someone with a camera could be considered harassment. Pesronal freedoms are extended even to those that are obnoxious , inappropriate and rude. We don't have "politeness" police in the US>

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes right so following someone against their consent isnt illegal but filming them to watch the footage later to yourself for however long you've filmed them for against their will isn't? that doesnt equate. surely the latter would be considered harrassment if you're calling the former harrasment.

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 I've already stated that following someone around could be considered harassment. There are mechanisms to deal with these issues, but violence is not one of them. Let's stick to the context of the video. I am telling you what the rules are in the US. YOu many not agree with them and I don't always either, but that's what they are right now.

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes ...? meh.. i know what happened in the video. why would you have responded differently if you knew i was outside US? also dude... i KNOW you've said following is harrassment. dig deeper im saying surely if following someone around is harrassment ie viewing in person persistently against will is harrassment surely filming which gives you the capacity to view them for however long you want after is harrassment. im repeating my argument presented to yuo in last post wihch you didnt get btw

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 I made the assumption you were from the US and tailored my response appropriately.

Again, your arguments have probably been made in courts. I have no idea of their outcome. REgardless, the scenario you paint is vague and subjective. It's mainly a civil matter and won't be reconciled between the two of us. However, I feel your argument is pandering to neurotic behavior and not really a matter of privacy. Your image and physical presence is not "private" when out in public.

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes how did you tailor you response? 'neurotic behavior and not really a matter of privacy' what do you mean? there's no reconciling or court argument here like i said i was hoping we could learn from each other. these laws made in the courts originate from the type of discussion we are partially having or at least im trying to have. i presented my point to you in my previous post (and the post before) you haven't given a direct argument back to me so i'll assume my point stands correct.

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 AS you wish. I'm done discussing it. I don't make the laws. I'm just telling you how it is. If you don't want to be filmed in public, don't come to the US.

[TheStfu1000]

@rrhynes thnx for not answering my two questions at all. it's pointless telling me how it is because how it is in your country may be different to the rest of the world and if you dont understand why it is then you just dont understand and can't have a good opinion. like i say you havent attempted to counter my logic so it still stands that if one is not allowed to follow you one is not allowed to record you. i find it quite disgusting you thinking it nerurotic to not want a random filming you.

[TheStfu1000]

but in any case even if my logic is wrong you havent even attempted to think about it in critical thought so you'll get know where in trying to simplify the complexity of this world. this argument is about rights and ownership. i think the critical difference is that recording is simply recording and it's not like if you weren't recording you'd be doing anything wrong (given you're not filming whilst stalking). but then recording someone turns it into property which someone must own...

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 With all that being said, it is perfectly acceptable to videotape people in public. Assholes that want to use aggressive or physical confrontation in order to stop you from videotaping them open themselves up to assault/harassment charges. Best idea is to leave the area if you don't want to be videotaped. Our law enforcement organization are just now getting their shit together on this subject. A lot of them think they're special too, but they aren't...according to the Sup Court.

[rrhynes]

@TheStfu1000 As far as non-govt employees aer concerned, you don't need their permission. If you use their image for TV or some other media for which compensation is to be had, you have to ask permission and keep release forms. There are other details, of course, that's the bulk of it. People hate having their image being used for something less than flattering, even if it's because of their own actions. As the old saying goes, "better to beg forgiveness, than ask permission" . Video away!

[StoogeWatcher]

@letom82 You Democrats are mentally retarded. You were the ones lecturing on civility and violence yet you're proven to be the thugs. Democrats hate it when their own actions of hypocrisy are caught.

[Fandaanx]

That's the ONLY way that unions know how to act is by bullying others, they can't do it on merit.

[ohwnou]

Why was this guy not arrested