Re:The sticky issue of consent in street photography
by mcguire on Wednesday November 24, 2021 @05:29PM
(#29335926)
"The House of Lords held MGN liable by majority vote, with lords Nicholls and Hoffmann dissenting. Baroness Hale, Lord Hope and Lord Carswell held that the picture added something of 'real significance'. The court engaged in a balancing test, firstly determining whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy (thus determining whether Art.8 ECHR was involved). It then considered whether, if the claimant was successful, this would result in a significant inference with freedom of expression (balancing Art. 8 with Art. 10). It was held that Campbell's right to privacy (ECHR, Sch 1, Part I, Art 8) outweighed MGN's right to freedom of expression (ECHR Art 10)."
So there is a specific legal cutout for those cases.
The legal system is not usually made up of complete idiots.
Re:The sticky issue of consent in street photography
by randombits0 on Wednesday November 24, 2021 @08:08PM
(#29337167)
> The legal system is not usually made up of complete idiots.
Certainly not. There is the “evil asshole” contingent as well, but I expect a bit of overlap between the two.
What if you're on the street outside an HIV clinic? Or an abortion clinic? Or an STI clinic? Or a substance misuse clinic? Or a narcotics anonymous meeting?
What if you're on the street, but have clearly just exited the door from that clinic?
This isn't idle noodling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v_MGN_Ltd