Professor Melissa Click should be fired

[lewisnotmiller]

And look at all the media I posted of them there interviewing students, filming for b-roll and talking about it in reporting. Wow, imagine that.

So where was that no media there again?

Who said there was no media?

And where has the media not been doing that? Where were they oppressed or being left out and told not to be in public space? Even in the original video, from the person who reported Click, he was walking around and talking to students and filming. They just asked to not be filmed personally and not in their face.

You're quoting privacy laws, and using wiki as the source, which I have no issue with, but perhaps the actual laws are more complicated. Also, I'm Australian, so I understand our laws better than yours.
Having said that, filming a newsworthy event in a public place doesn't afford someone a right to privacy. They have the right to not speak on camera, but they have no right to block filming. What right did people have for removing him from the public space? I don't even understand the angle by which you are arguing this, to be honest.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Not quite accurate in how you are representing what I said, but you are close.

I said just because they have grievances doesn't mean they get to dictate how the media records the event at the school. The entire time I've been talking about the topic of this thread, the teacher, and the particular instance involving her. I'm not talking about all the other instances of reporting. I did not claim, or mean, that the protesters were successful, or attempting to, dictate that no one film that day, anywhere on campus. I didn't even suggest that.

I haven't stopped talking about the topic of this thread. Just because you seem to be trying to make it NOT about the teacher, and that particular event -- that's still what this thread is about.

The entire time I was talking about the area where the teacher and called for muscle to eject the reporter, and the crowd was behaving as though they had the authority to use intimidation, and were pushing him. I do think that behavior is an attempt to dictate how the media records, by attempting to stop him. Is that it? Is it that what you're calling lying?

Are you saying they are not trying to tell him, to dictate to him, that he can't record there? The way I see it, that's what you'd need to be saying in order to say, a communication like, "you can't be here, you can't record here" is not trying to tell someone what he can't do.

But they didn't. All they asked were not be personally filmed and to not have a camera literally inches away from their face.

They weren't pushing anyone. Did you still not watch the video? Nobody was pushed. The guy didn't move when he was asked to because they were starting their demonstration. It's not their fault he didn't listen to them.

I suggest you read this-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States


Even the guy filming who had the confrontation with Click wasn't bothered in terms of removing him or anything. People didn't want to be filmed. He continued walking around and filming like other people were. Imagine that.

Do people, even at public spaces, have the right to refuse to be filmed by the media?

You can see plenty of other people there also filming with their hand phones as I've said multiple times. Why do people not bring up that? Notice how they weren't in anyone's faces and being rude and they weren't being told to not film. Imagine that.

Also, they weren't telling him to not film. Again, watch the video. At the beginning you hear a woman say "if you're with the media stay back." That's what the signs are for. So obviously other media was there. Obviously they had no other issues with other media people being there. Why are you leaving that out?

Who said there was no media?



You're quoting privacy laws, and using wiki as the source, which I have no issue with, but perhaps the actual laws are more complicated. Also, I'm Australian, so I understand our laws better than yours.
Having said that, filming a newsworthy event in a public place doesn't afford someone a right to privacy. They have the right to not speak on camera, but they have no right to block filming. What right did people have for removing him from the public space? I don't even understand the angle by which you are arguing this, to be honest.

Actually here in the US it does. The privacy laws here in the US do.

And if you watched the video that's what they're doing. The student journalist they're talking to was INCHES away from people's faces taking pictures. They asked to not be filmed.

What do you do when the whole group asks to not be filmed?

Privacy laws in the US say you have to respect that.

If you've ever watched news media here in the US you would see that all the time. When they're talking about something, like holiday shopping for ex, you'd see the big crowds of people walking around. But if you're focusing on an individual person, for ex walking away, you see they don't have their head. Or they might have their back. You have to respect people's privacy laws even in public places. It's different when you're filming a large crowd vs individual people. That's where the issue was.

They had plenty of media there at the event in question. Even interviewing students such as the NYTimes link I provided where you can see a video of faculty and students alike being interviewed. That was their decision. Not everyone wants their individual picture taken and put in the media. That's where the privacy laws come into play.


Do people have a right to tell a journalist they don't want their picture taken?

 

[4consideration]

But they didn't. All they asked were not be personally filmed and to not have a camera literally inches away from their face.

They walked up to him and put their faces in the camera. He did not walk up that close to them. Anyone watching the film can see that.

 

[LittlePinky82]

They walked up to him and put their faces in the camera. He did not walk up that close to them. Anyone watching the film can see that.

Nope. Watch the whole video from the beginning. At the beginning you see them standing in a line. You see a couple of other photo journalists there also taking pictures. One person puts their hand up to not be photographed. Then they start to do their demonstration. A student involved says to make the circle bigger. At 0:26 you can see another journalist there who is white with black hair (you see him at the beginning taking pictures with the person and their hand) and he's talking to a student. You see the girl's hair bob up and down to nod her head and you can tell he's talking to her in conversation.

At 0:35 you see the guy in question along with them. There's a woman there saying to take "just a couple more steps" back and to "not worry about him." The guy goes with the others and he goes up first to the students. They're in their position. You hear the photographer talk about pushing. But the faculty member is trying to explain to the guy they can't move and to not push them further back. The guy then says he won't push them and the faculty member nods in agreement. Then you hear the woman say "you need to back up if you're with the media."

So yes he did walk that close to them. By this point the other journalists who were around him have already left and backed up. He's the only one there. This is where the guy starts to argue with them. Saying he's a student. But he's not understanding he's with the media as a student journalist. He still has to back up like everyone else does. After numerous warnings about the media backing up the students start to move forward for their demonstration.

The guy isn't moving at all and that's when one student says "we'll just block you." He then starts taking pictures inches away from people's faces. You hear a female student say "if you want to take photo's you need to give them space. You can't be this close to them. Please, step back." Then he does his argument again about how they're there to him. No duh Sherlock. This is their demonstration. They told EVERYONE this before hand.

So you're wrong. Of course they're going to be in their spots because it's their demonstration. He refused to move.

I'm honestly done arguing about this. The US says people don't have the right to photograph people without their permission. This guy didn't respect that. He also didn't respect their demonstration in moving. He just had to step back like was asked and nothing would have happened. What is so hard about that? Like one student asked: what about decency to respect others?

Respond if people want I'm done arguing over it if there's nothing new to talk about.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What an interesting conversation. Like Jay, I was very active in the civil rights movements of my day. There was a code followed by most: An injustice to one is an injustice to all.

So LittlePinky, are you suggesting that Click was acting in fairly? You seem to think that the umbrage taken against her actions is directed at everyone participating in the protest. You can't pull the race card here since the lady is white. I am at a loss why you are supporting her boorish behavior? It's my personal belief that no one should be denied access to a public facility... especially if they are a student there. What if the "No Press" said "No Blacks"? You seem to have only a problem with one and not the other while I have a problem with both of those. No one should be discriminated for their color or even being a student, much less a journalist. I also have a dream where we'll all just get along, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or any socio-economic status. So no, it's not alright to infringe on anyone's rights... not even for Ms Click.

 

[Mister Emu]

They're saying this particular spot you can't be because it's where they were doing their demonstration and you'd be in the way and get run over possibly because they had a point where they moved forward for a few steps and almost ran over a guy and he got all freaked out for a second

That whole "move forward" thing was specifically for the purpose of pushing any reporters back, at the end, after they bully the cameraman into leaving the crazy professor even confirms that the people standing in a circle exist for the purpose of preventing undesirables from being in the demonstration area. "You all are providing a valuable service, there are lots of press who want to get in, keep them out, even form a double layer!"

Where they were telling EVERYONE in the media to stay back?

Why should they be able to tell the media to stay out and enforce through physical intimidation, constant badgering, and threats of false reports? Especially a student reporter.

Yeah such thugs with saying "please."

Maybe you missed the whole part after he politely refused.

Nobody was touched except the students from the first guy who didn't move and instead touched them as they were trying to do their demonstration.

You mean the video where they got together and physically pushed a reporter out? That video?

Do you think it's okay for journalists to be inches from someone's face taking their picture?

Is it ok to move into a position inches from a reporter and then demand he move to accommodate your personal space?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Actually here in the US it does. The privacy laws here in the US do.

And if you watched the video that's what they're doing. The student journalist they're talking to was INCHES away from people's faces taking pictures. They asked to not be filmed.

What do you do when the whole group asks to not be filmed?

Privacy laws in the US say you have to respect that.

Not as far as I can tell. Can you provide a source?
I've done some searching, since your laws can obviously differ from ours, but honestly, they appear remarkably similar. If the people don't have a legitimate reason to expect privacy (for example, a public bathroom), public places are fair game.
It's possible I've missed something, but I've been looking. I'm not sure your info is correct.

https://asmp.org/tutorials/frequently-asked-questions-about-privacy-and-libel.html#public

 

[Laika]

Here is the video full on from the person who was the one who was confronted by Click later on. All that happened was she was a sarcastic *** to him. She didn't touch him. She didn't do anything but put her hand in front of his camera and be a smart ***. He still walked around and happily video taped.

Watch the whole thing not just the "good" part.

Yet nothing from you all about the students getting cameras literally inches from their faces in the first part of the video.

This is just my opinion but after watching the video, I find all this very strange that there should be any conflict here at all. And it is just very hysterial to draw any larger conclusions based on it. Either side could have compromised and it was both sides absolute insistence on "their" right to public space, and "their" right to document a protest. I think any experienced journalist would know that once people start becoming un-co-operative its time to take your leave, and any experienced activist knows the press is going to be around there and that is not always going to be welcome but you work with them as best you can. this is a badly designed protest, with some obnoxious teens taking photos, not a first amendment issue. tempers flared and now this is doing the rounds in social media . This is quite bizzare.

What the hell is going on in America if something like this becomes "news"?

 

[LittlePinky82]

That whole "move forward" thing was specifically for the purpose of pushing any reporters back, at the end, after they bully the cameraman into leaving the crazy professor even confirms that the people standing in a circle exist for the purpose of preventing undesirables from being in the demonstration area. "You all are providing a valuable service, there are lots of press who want to get in, keep them out, even form a double layer!"


Why should they be able to tell the media to stay out and enforce through physical intimidation, constant badgering, and threats of false reports? Especially a student reporter.


Maybe you missed the whole part after he politely refused.


You mean the video where they got together and physically pushed a reporter out? That video?


Is it ok to move into a position inches from a reporter and then demand he move to accommodate your personal space?

I posted the video. You should watch it if you're going to talk about the situation. It seems like you haven't either if you're not even sure what's going on. I even did a recap of everything.

Here it is again and watch it from the beginning-

Even in the screen cap you can see a guy in blue and a blue hat filming and nobody caring. Omg imagine that.

All the students are asking him is two things 1) don't take my picture (individually) 2) don't be inches from my face.

You even hear a young woman say it's fine if he wants to take their picture just step back. Look how far from their faces he is. People aren't fond of that. Just saying.

They did not "get together" and physically pushed anyone out.

They were already there as the video happens. They're getting ready to do their demonstration. This was the day the president was fired. They were going to stand on the grounds for 2 hours linked together in this place on the grounds. They over took this part of the property during the whole week for the protesting. Later in the day they were going to have a victory party of which everyone was invited.

He did not politely refuse. He stood there acting like a bratty self-entitled individual in the name of the "first amendment." However, the first amendment is a) the government and b) there are laws even against the press in this country. One of them is you can't run a person's picture in the media, especially for profit, without their permission. If someone asks you "please don't take my picture" as an individual you HAVE to listen to that. Period.

If you notice in the video you can see there are other journalists at the beginning taking pictures as well. You see this one white guy with sorta longish hair. He takes some pictures and gets to one guy who puts his hand up to not have his picture taken. The photographer moves on. He doesn't stand there and argue "I have the right to take your picture." He moves on because he knows the law. He goes to a female student and they end up talking. You can see her hair bobbing up and down and his mouth is moving. Then you hear the woman say if you're with the media you need to step back and he leaves. Everyone else with the media leaves but this student journalist.

They start to link arms and you hear a female student say "let's make the circle bigger guys" and they do. You see then the student journalist try to push his way through but they're not moving. You see a white faculty staff member (apparently Click's husband I've heard) say they can't move and don't touch the students. The guy agree's. The woman again says "if you're with the media you need to step back" and he doesn't. Then they move forward for their demonstration and he almost loses his footing because he didn't listen to them. Everyone else listened but him.

He was the one in the wrong. He was the one who didn't move. There were several warnings from the Click woman for media to please move because the students were going to do their demonstration.

You really should watch the video before commenting.

And actually in this day and age you don't need the media. We have social media. We have things like livestream and snapchat now. Twitter, Instagram, facebook. Who says we need the media?

Not as far as I can tell. Can you provide a source?
I've done some searching, since your laws can obviously differ from ours, but honestly, they appear remarkably similar. If the people don't have a legitimate reason to expect privacy (for example, a public bathroom), public places are fair game.
It's possible I've missed something, but I've been looking. I'm not sure your info is correct.

https://asmp.org/tutorials/frequently-asked-questions-about-privacy-and-libel.html#public

Public places are fair game. Just like big groups are. Individual pictures of people are not. If you're going to take someone's individual picture and someone says please don't take my picture you have to listen to them. That was the whole problem here with this situation. The guy not listening to move (when everyone else did) and not listening when individual's didn't want their picture taken. As I previously pointed out, you can see another journalist (a white guy with black hair sorta longish) taking pictures at the beginning. He gets to one guy who is white and he puts his hand up as to say don't take my picture. The guy moves on. Personally, if it was me there, I would have did what students did during the Iraq invasion protests: wear a bandanna to shield the bottom half of your face. That's what youth did when they were protesting that on and off campuses back then. That way, even if someone doesn't listen to your wishes to not be photographed, he really won't have your picture with your whole face.

This is just my opinion but after watching the video, I find all this very strange that there should be any conflict here at all. And it is just very hysterial to draw any larger conclusions based on it. Either side could have compromised and it was both sides absolute insistence on "their" right to public space, and "their" right to document a protest. I think any experienced journalist would know that once people start becoming un-co-operative its time to take your leave, and any experienced activist knows the press is going to be around there and that is not always going to be welcome but you work with them as best you can. this is a badly designed protest, with some obnoxious teens taking photos, not a first amendment issue. tempers flared and now this is doing the rounds in social media . This is quite bizzare.

What the hell is going on in America if something like this becomes "news"?

You have to remember as well this campus has been dealing with issues for a while. It was first (I guess a month or two ago?) where the school did away with health care for graduate students and didn't give them time with that. They protested that and bamb it was brought back. Then the issues of racism began on the campus and you had the hunger strike, student and faculty walkout, the football team quitting. When you mess around with the football team (big money) you get attention. That's when the president resigned.

And it's not about that. It's about individual students having their picture taken. Here if someone says "please don't take my picture" as an individual you have to respect that. It's different if it's a big group and you have the group permission but individually you have to ask. The first amendment issues aren't it. The first amendment is with the government. This is a student journalist there on his own time taking these pictures. He's on govt property so he's there. They have no problems with it. Other media was there. I posted a link to the NYTimes where they were there this day too and interviewed faculty and staff. You can see the tents and the signs and you can see other people with cameras walking around. Even in this video you can see other journalists and students with cameras not having any issues. You know why this guy did? Because of two things 1) he was literally inches away from people and not listening when they didn't want their INDIVIDUAL picture taken 2) he wouldn't move back when everyone else did.

Why did everyone else in the media move back? Why did everyone else in the media respect students wishes to not be individually pictured? Why was only this guy with the problem?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I posted the video. You should watch it if you're going to talk about the situation. It seems like you haven't either if you're not even sure what's going on.

Actually, a number of us have watched it and simply disagree with your conclusion. It's the height of arrogance to assume that any disagreement MUST be because they haven't watched the video or are confused. If Ms Click acted nobly, as you seem to contend, then why did she feel compelled to apologize? Why did she resign rather than let others decide her fate? She learned a big lesson: actions often have consequences. I'm not sure why you're defending her, when she doesn't even defend herself? On top of the mess she's made for herself, she's also distracted the media from what's really going on there. That's deplorable. Maybe she should change her title from a Professor of mass media to one of mass hysteria? Even better, she should call herself the Professor of Media Fail. Whatever, I would hate for her to pass on her inability to assess future consequences to any student.

Don't even try to mitigate her actions with some pathetic need for personal privacy. This was a public gathering in a public space. The only way to assure that your picture is not a part of this story is to stay the hell away. If you don't have the guts, you certainly don't deserve the glory. Since you didn't answer my earlier question, I'll reiterate. What's the difference between posting "No Blacks" and "No Media"??? Nothing but a skewed perspective on whose rights should be protected. How about we protect everyone's right to assembly? How about we protect everyone's right to free speech?

 

[LittlePinky82]

Actually, a number of us have watched it and simply disagree with your conclusion. It's the height of arrogance to assume that any disagreement MUST be because they haven't watched the video or are confused. If Ms Click acted nobly, as you seem to contend, then why did she feel compelled to apologize? Why did she resign rather than let others decide her fate? She learned a big lesson: actions often have consequences. I'm not sure why you're defending her, when she doesn't even defend herself? On top of the mess she's made for herself, she's also distracted the media from what's really going on there. That's deplorable. Maybe she should change her title from a Professor of mass media to one of mass hysteria? Even better, she should call herself the Professor of Media Fail. Whatever, I would hate for her to pass on her inability to assess future consequences to any student.

Don't even try to mitigate her actions with some pathetic need for personal privacy. This was a public gathering in a public space. The only way to assure that your picture is not a part of this story is to stay the hell away. If you don't have the guts, you certainly don't deserve the glory. Since you didn't answer my earlier question, I'll reiterate. What's the difference between posting "No Blacks" and "No Media"??? Nothing but a skewed perspective on whose rights should be protected. How about we protect everyone's right to assembly? How about we protect everyone's right to free speech?

Who is defending HER? I'm defending the students, dear. I don't give a damn about her. Read my posts much?

And "no blacks" is targeting specific people. No media isn't. The media is the media. And they were there. Where were they not? They weren't in that spot when it was said to move back. There are laws in this country against the media. You know that, right?

Notice how other journalists are there in the beginning taking pictures and when it's told to move back they do. They don't stand there arguing with their "right" to take your picture.

The first amendment is with the government. Not individual people. If an individual asks to not be photographed you have to listen. Period. That's the law. End of discussion.

If you read my posts, dear, you'd see where I'm arguing. If an individual person asks you to not film privacy rights say you have to listen. The media can not show someone in the media without their permission. Notice how other journalists are also faced with this in the video. They don't stand there and argue with the students. They move on. Why? Maybe because they understand the law?

Also, with the 'no blacks' argument you would know how pathetic that is if you were familiar with the Civil Rights Act. If you have a space and it's open to the general public you can't discriminate against someone for their race, sex, religion to not be there.

How about we follow the said law? IF an individual person asks to please not take my picture why don't we follow the law and do that? You can not have an individual's picture taken if they don't want their picture in the media.

I've been interviewed before by local media. It was many yrs ago when I was still in high school or just out of high school. It was a long time ago and about this local park I used to go to and exercise. I was coming back to the parking lot area and was approached by a journalist who was asking people about their thoughts about the work the park was having. I gave my opinion and the person asked me if I would have my name with it. I said no thank you and she didn't stand there and harass me for my name. I gave her permission for my words not my name. That's how it works.

You also don't have a cart blanch with free speech. There's rules and regulations with free speech here in the US. You can't do libel, slander, slander per se, you can't incite a riot, hate speech isn't protected, in the public air waves you can't curse. Just some examples.

I don't give a damn why she did apologize or not. It's not my life. Not my concern. I really don't care.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Who is defending HER? I'm defending the students, dear. I don't give a damn about her. Read my posts much?

Again with the challenge that I haven't read your posts. I have and they are so fraught with errors that it's hard to know where to begin. I'm wondering if YOU read your posts much? They're not as clear as you think they are and yes, you appear to be defending Ms Click's actions. If you disagree with this, then you need to take a course in persuasive writing.

And "no blacks" is targeting specific people. No media isn't.

You're kidding with this circular line of reasoning, right? How specific do you have to be? It's obvious that there are fewer media than there are blacks, n'est pas? They are more a minority then and are deserving of their rights too. What if he was a black journalist instead of being Asian? Would he be allowed by Ms Click then?

There are laws in this country against the media. You know that, right?

Against? Other than controlling the paparazzi, most laws concerning the media are to protect them from people like Ms Click and you.

The first amendment is with the government. Not individual people. If an individual asks to not be photographed you have to listen. Period. That's the law. End of discussion.

So brusque! Especially given the fact that you don't have a clue about privacy laws. Here's a primer: http://www.pcblawfirm.com/articles/legal-issues-photographing-people Ignorance of reality can cause all kinds of problems.

Also, with the 'no blacks' argument you would know how pathetic that is if you were familiar with the Civil Rights Act. If you have a space and it's open to the general public you can't discriminate against someone for their race, sex, religion to not be there.

I was the only white in my Junior High School by choice. I've listened to and personally met Dr Martin Luther King. I was even stabbed for my beliefs about equality. I actually lived during those times, so I'm certain I'm more familiar with the Civil Rights Act than you are. They were written for EVERYONE. White, black, hispanic and yes... even the media.

How about we follow the said law?

How about a citation for this 'said law'? Just because you would like it, doesn't mean that it exists. However, the first rule of Scuba applies here: I won't hold my breath.

I don't give a damn why she did apologize or not. It's not my life. Not my concern. I really don't care.

When confronted with the obvious, the "I don't give a damn" strategy is the obvious choice. I find that intellectually dishonest and not just a little lame, but then it's the only way to defend the indefensible.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Again with the challenge that I haven't read your posts. I have and they are so fraught with errors that it's hard to know where to begin. I'm wondering if YOU read your posts much? They're not as clear as you think they are and yes, you appear to be defending Ms Click's actions. If you disagree with this, then you need to take a course in persuasive writing.

You're kidding with this circular line of reasoning, right? How specific do you have to be? It's obvious that there are fewer media than there are blacks, n'est pas? They are more a minority then and are deserving of their rights too. What if he was a black journalist instead of being Asian? Would he be allowed by Ms Click then?

Against? Other than controlling the paparazzi, most laws concerning the media are to protect them from people like Ms Click and you.

So brusque! Especially given the fact that you don't have a clue about privacy laws. Here's a primer: http://www.pcblawfirm.com/articles/legal-issues-photographing-people Ignorance of reality can cause all kinds of problems.

I was the only white in my Junior High School by choice. I've listened to and personally met Dr Martin Luther King. I was even stabbed for my beliefs about equality. I actually lived during those times, so I'm certain I'm more familiar with the Civil Rights Act than you are. They were written for EVERYONE. White, black, hispanic and yes... even the media.

How about a citation for this 'said law'? Just because you would like it, doesn't mean that it exists. However, the first rule of Scuba applies here: I won't hold my breath.

When confronted with the obvious the "I don't give a damn" strategy is the obvious choice. I find that intellectually dishonest and not just a little lame, but then it's the only way to defend the indefensible.

Nope. I'm defending the students. Where have I talked about her at all?

I mentioned her a number of pgs ago where I applauded the response and thought it was appropriate. She was a sarcastic *** and behaved like an immature adult. No other adult was shown behaving like that.

He as a journalist. Period. He was there as part of the media. And notice how nobody else stays around but him. Everyone else leaves and respects when the students don't want to be filmed. Why doesn't he?

Actually I do. From your own link-


< There are some basic limitations on the use of people as the subject matter of photographs. A photographer will be liable in a civil action if he takes a photograph of a person and in doing so violates that person’s right of privacy. A photographer will also be civilly liable if he or she takes and uses a photograph of a well-known person, such as a sports or show business personality, in a “commercial” context. Further, a photographer may be liable for trespass if he goes onto the property of another without permission to take a photograph of a person, even if the photographer could have taken the same photograph from public property. To avoid any of these situations, it is helpful for the photographer to understand the rights asserted against photographers that have led to photographer liability in photographing people. >

<
The Right of Privacy
The right of privacy has been described as “the right to be left alone.” It arises solely from law established by court decisions. In many states, including Missouri, there are no statutes in that address the right of privacy; the right has been created through court decisions. Violation of one’s right of privacy is considered a “tort” or civil wrong that gives rise to the right to sue in state court for damages, an injunction, or both. In most, if not all, jurisdictions, only a natural person, not a legal entity such as a corporation, enjoys a right of privacy. >


< •3. Misappropriation of a Person’s Identity. This tort involves the unauthorized use of another’s name or likeness from which the user derives a benefit. An example of this would be the use of a photograph of a person, without that person’s consent, to promote a political cause or the sale of a product. This is not to be confused with the right of publicity, which is also a tort recognized in Missouri and is discussed further below. Misappropriation of identity is generally available to persons who are not “famous” and have no well-known public image. The tort protects against intrusion upon an individual’s private self-esteem and dignity. The measure of damages is typically the amount of emotional distress experienced by the plaintiff. The use of the photograph is critical to this claim. There must be some level of publication of the photograph for the user of it to obtain a benefit, and the most common fact pattern giving rise to a claim under this violation involves commercial use of the photograph providing monetary benefit to the photographer or to the person who purchased the publication rights from the photographer. This is typically the cause of action that would be asserted by a person, not a professional model or personality, whose image is used in an advertisement where the photographer failed to obtain a proper model release. >

<Some rules of general applicability can be drawn from the foregoing discussion. First, the intrusion upon the seclusion of another does not involve the subsequent use of the photograph or whether the subject of the photograph is identifiable; it involves the circumstances of the taking of the photograph. Regardless of how the photograph will be used and whether the subject is identifiable, the photographer should not take a photograph or attempt to take a photograph under circumstances that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Generally this will not happen in a public place because the subject should not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, in some circumstances where the subject can expect privacy within a public place, such as in the first aid tent of a public event or in a public restroom, an unreasonable intrusion upon privacy can occur.

Second, if the photograph was taken under circumstances that do not constitute an intrusion upon the seclusion of another, and if the subject is not identifiable, the photograph can be used for any purpose, including endorsement of a commercial product.

Third, even if the photograph was taken under circumstances not constituting intrusion upon seclusion, if the subject of the photograph is identifiable, the photographer must evaluate whether use of the photograph for any purpose would constitute the publication of private facts. Again, if the photograph was taken in a public place, it is unlikely, but possible, that the information conveyed by the photograph could be private facts. Even if the information might otherwise be considered private facts, if the photograph conveys information in which the public has a legitimate interest, and is used to convey that information to the public, the public interest will usually outweigh privacy concerns.

Fourth, do not use a photograph of a person for commercial purposes without obtaining a full release. To do otherwise will, under most circumstances, constitute misappropriation of the subject’s identity or violation of the subject’s right of publicity, depending on the status of the subject as an “ordinary citizen” or a public figure. There are exceptions to this rule where the sale of the photograph itself as art, rather than for use in connection with advertisement or product endorsement, provides the commercial aspect. Under these circumstances the photographer must consider, as the courts did in the ETW and Comedy III cases, whether the photograph exhibits enough artistic creative expression to warrant the First Amendment rights of the photographer outweighing the privacy or publicity rights of the subject. Given the test applied in these cases, in the context of a photograph, the presence of the subject would have to be almost incidental to the overall presentation, or the creative post processing of the photograph would have to be extensive. >

And if I don't care I don't care.

The media doesn't have to be places. If you're, for ex, a store owner and you don't want filming in your store, especially people from the media, you can have a sign that says "no media" and you can enforce that. However, if you're open to the general public you can't say no this or that type of person allowed. The media can't just go wherever they want and there are rules and regulations in which they can film as I even pointed out from your own link.

I suggest you go to your own link and read the court cases as well.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Nope. I'm defending the students.

Actually, you attacked the OP for bringing this up. That implicitly defends Ms Click.

As for the copious quoting, I must ask if you understand any of it at all? No where does it state or imply that it's against the law for a photographer to take anyone's picture if there is no right to seclusion. If you're in a public venue, then you should have no delusions about any right to seclusion. You can request that your picture not be taken, but assaulting a photographer can result in you being sued or imprisoned. It's my opinion that her apology was prompted by a huge desire not to have her butt sued.

As for not caring... you've certainly spent an inordinate amount of time defending Ms Click's actions to not care.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Actually, you attacked the OP for bringing this up. That implicitly defends Ms Click.

As for the copious quoting, I must ask if you understand any of it at all? No where does it state or imply that it's against the law for a photographer to take anyone's picture if there is no right to seclusion. If you're in a public venue, then you should have no delusions about any right to seclusion. You can request that your picture not be taken, but assaulting a photographer can result in you being sued or imprisoned. It's my opinion that her apology was prompted by a huge desire not to have her butt sued.

As for not caring... you've certainly spent an inordinate amount of time defending Ms Click's actions to not care.

Nope. Again, defending the students to not be pictured. Maybe you should try reading my posts.

And nope-

<
The Right of Privacy
The right of privacy has been described as “the right to be left alone.” It arises solely from law established by court decisions. In many states, including Missouri, there are no statutes in that address the right of privacy; the right has been created through court decisions. Violation of one’s right of privacy is considered a “tort” or civil wrong that gives rise to the right to sue in state court for damages, an injunction, or both. In most, if not all, jurisdictions, only a natural person, not a legal entity such as a corporation, enjoys a right of privacy. >

The right of privacy has been described as “the right to be left alone.” It arises solely from law established by court decisions.

It's not about seclusion. It's the right to be left alone. He didn't respect them. Other journalists filmed at the beginning did. Why didn't he?

Click didn't bother this student. She did the person filming the whole thing. Not the student journalist. You're confusing yourself. I'm defending the students right to not be pictured if they don't want it. Mrs. Click had nothing to do with this situation. She came LATER after it happened to the guy filming it. And I already said in regard to that the school did the right thing. Please comprehend my posts properly. Thank you.

And nobody assaulted anyone. Is it the student's fault the guy didn't move when he had numerous warnings to step back? And when they moved he got run over? Maybe if he listened to them like everyone else did he would have had no problems. And the person filming even he didn't appear to be touched by anyone. So no assault there. Assault is unwanted touching. None happened except to the students at the beginning.


Maybe you should be asking yourself that question about understanding since you obviously don't understand what the right to privacy means. It means the right to be left alone. Omg yes even in a public space. Imagine that. This guy didn't respect students right to be left alone unlike other journalists there who did.

Click had nothing to do with the student journalist. The only thing with her is you can hear her voice at the beginning telling the media to step back and this guy didn't listen. She comes in LATER after the whole affair happened and confronts the person filming and when he got TOO CLOSE to the tent area where they had set up and were living for the week. The school handled the situation fine and I don't care how they did in regards to her since I really don't care about her. It's their institution and their choice in how to handle these type of affairs. Who am I to judge it? Students still have a right to not be pictured and to be left alone as pointed out by Missouri law.

You're circle jerking now and quite frankly I'm getting bored of repeating myself. Unless there's something new I'm just going to refer people to this post who comment to me from here on out if I do anything in response.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You're circle jerking now and quite frankly I'm getting bored of repeating myself.

Wow, you're quoting the very part of the law that allows the journalists to take pictures, but you're so convinced that you must be correct that you keep repeating the same crud over and over. Repeating it doesn't make it right. Crudity notwithstanding, your reasoning is circular here as well as specious. You're arguing with a sign post and taking the wrong way home.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a citation on that 'said law' that I know doesn't exist.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Wow, you're quoting the very part of the law that allows the journalists to take pictures, but you're so convinced that you must be correct that you keep repeating the same crud over and over. Repeating it doesn't make it right. Crudity notwithstanding, your reasoning is circular here as well as specious. You're arguing with a sign post and taking the wrong way home.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a citation on that 'said law' that I know doesn't exist.

http://www.pcblawfirm.com/articles/legal-issues-photographing-people/


http://www.rcfp.org/digital-journalists-legal-guide/invasion-privacy-

http://www.rcfp.org/photographers-guide-privacy/nine-keys-avoiding-invasion-privacy-suits


Missouri law has been unclear on the issue except in Court cases. The legal definition of the right to privacy is the right to be left alone. Until the law clears up the issue you only have Court cases to go on.

Now really this thread is just circle jerking now and I'm bored of repeating myself. If there's nothing new I'm moving on with my life. You can keep circle jerking if you want but I'm really bored and done with the same arguments just being reposted over and over again.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Missouri law has been unclear on the issue except in Court cases.

So, there is no 'said law' to be cited that prohibits a journalist from taking a photo in a public venue. To put this in perspective, the journalist violated no laws and he was assaulted needlessly. Glad we cleared that up.

In other news, let's hope Mizzou can clear up it's campus racism.

 

[columbus]

The legal definition of the right to privacy is the right to be left alone.

Check your privilege pumpkin.
I am sure that Melissa Click wants to squelch the media.
That puts her in the category with US cops who shoot citizens in the back and the Communist China government. They all want the media to give them some privacy.
Of course they do. That's the whole point to shutting down the media. So you can do what you want to do and nobody will call you on it.
Tom

 

[LittlePinky82]

Check your privilege pumpkin.
I am sure that Melissa Click wants to squelch the media.
That puts her in the category with US cops who shoot citizens in the back and the Communist China government. They all want the media to give them some privacy.
Of course they do. That's the whole point to shutting down the media. So you can do what you want to do and nobody will call you on it.
Tom

How do you know what she wants to do? Have you interviewed her? Has she spoken to the media in regards to her "plans"? Are you a mind reader with super powers? Omg! What am I thinking now ? Please, do tell. Since you apparently know what everyone is thinking.

She apologized and regretted her actions in a heated moment. I suppose you've never been in that situation and you're always perfect. Except you're not in calling me a sexist name right now. So please check your male privilege. You calling a grown 33 yr old woman "pumpkin" is sexist and degrading. You're trying to shame someone for an awful act they did in a moment in time and claim to know everything about that person in a moment in time. So, here you are now doing a shameful act in a moment of time with calling me "pumpkin" and being sexist. You should apologize to me for offending me with degrading me as a female by calling me this degrading term.

And if you're trying to degrade me as a Communist by mentioning China (who isn't by the way if you are aware of anything going on there they're more fascist than anything) you're not doing it. Sorry. Just not insulted because they are fascists.

How's that NSA?

Check your male privilege. And check your own level of perfectness. I'm sure you're soo perfect as a human being and have never done anything wrong. Except here where you're being sexist towards me. Being a hypocrite is so pathetic.

And psst no media was shut down. If they were you wouldn't have this video now would you? But oh wait you do....

Please work on your sexism issues.