I agree, the scope creep of "violence" is suspicious, and likely to dilute the meaning of the word. Now, when someone complains of violence, have to clarify "you mean physical violence?" to make sure I'm not being misled..

Same here. In this case, the misapplication of "sexual violence" is even more shocking. The idea that taking a picture of a girl on the beach is in the same realm of offense as sexual assault is asinine. The same misapplication of terms lets monsters like the antifa protestors, Dylan Roof, and others claim they are responding to violence, and thus initiate force against media, police, and others.

> Can we agree that taking photographs of people without their consent is nothing more than extremely creepy?

In public? I'd replace "nothing more than" with "at worst".

These, for example, I don't think most people would consider creepy: https://petapixel.com/2017/01/28/40-best-street-photos-2016-...

That certainly could have been better worded, but in context we aren't talking about photographers with nice cameras like were certainly used to take those pictures.

We are talking about spy cameras or cellphones generally used in a surreptitious manor to conceal the fact that ladies are being filmed/photographed.

IMO, if you don't want to be photographed while scantily clad in public, don't go into public scantily clad. People want the freedom of walking around in skin tight clothes that expose the curves of every piece of their anatomy to all that who can see without the consequences of exposing the same to all who can see. Apparently public shaming isn't enough and they need to call on the fringe "everything is violence" crowd to bring illegal actual physical violence into the mix. :(

Note: I have no problem with anyone wearing anything they want. I totally support it. I just dislike this topic being treated as news here.