You don’t watch the news much do you? This is the MO of reporters at every news agency chasing a soundbyte. Nothing illegal in the slightest.
Insofar as they’re both…objects?
https://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/06/bindra....
In Quebec, your image is yours.
I think this is a good take, but I'd suggest the best response is to address the human being that is addressing you and say "no thanks".
And yes, I live in Manhattan and before that downtown SF, so I'd wager I've been confronted by strangers far more often than the average person.
One time I was in some sort of "soap opera" student project where I had to read some lines on tape. Another time a partner and I were confronted coming out of the Museum of Sex to be interviewed about our sex life. A video I was in at a park after Biden was announced the winner went semi-viral. One time at the corner of Polk x Post a man in a car tried to pick me up for sex work! I could go on.
This is why it's entirely okay to just shut the door on salesmen, or just hang up on cold callers. Indeed, that is actually the BEST way, because anything you say or do besides that will be used, by a skilled salesperson, to try and pry open a longer interaction.
These people are operating in bad faith, and should be treated accordingly.
They are not the problem, in my opinion, but they are also entitled to nothing that I do not choose to give of my own volition. Expecting a response, particularly a polite one, to an unsolicited interaction is on the same level of telling someone that "you'd look better if you smiled."
People are free to be in public but must also be aware of the consequences of their actions. One of those consequences may be that they are brusquely ignored.
If they want to be out in the world, go for it, but don't pretend the people engaging in their own activities are the problem.
If someone is approaching you in public with a mic in their hand, you don't owe them anything.
If someone cold-calls you for sales, you don't owe them a moment more of your time once you realize what they are.
If someone knocks on your door to sell knives or pots and pans or Jesus, you especially don't owe them anything.
This is a bait-and-switch; you're saying that the person intruded upon has a responsibility to conform their behavior to suit the person who intruded upon them. The poster above said nothing about wanting to hide from the world, you just made that up and ascribed it to them. You might want to review your approach to discourse.
Ignoring them is best, responding with swear words is second best, and pretending it's a normal human interaction is far, far down the list.
> You've[...] made it easier for the intrusive human being to continue to rudely intrude on others
If you have made them feel uncomfortable - perhaps forced them to stop and confront the discomfort that they are selfishly causing - then this is not, in fact, true. And if this happens repeatedly, they will stop.
Assuming you mean the USA, the problem is you need people to enforce those laws or succeed with lawsuits (and dodge endless appeals or ascension to the SCOTUS). We can't even begin address gun violence in this country, I highly doubt we'll get consent-to-be-filmed-in-public-laws passed.
If it’s brought by someone who makes a living by being obnoxious harassing private citizens in public, how much sympathy would that get from the judge?
From what I've seen they are pretty well defended by law, including when filming minor celebrities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
See also:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WalkableStreets/comments/u9jonf/for...
Edit: this may also be useful:
The law and courts need to acknowledge a third state beyond "in private" and "in public".
Call it "on stage" -- when large numbers of people can see you but you can't see them.
You can disseminate film of people on stage, but not in public.