Originally Posted by pinkkiller
I hope you realise that this is a dangerous statement right there, because such thinking encourages harassment. Personally I don't give a flying fuck if you want to nitpick about legal implications just to make things "interesting" (pissing people off, obviously, is going to make things interesting. Good job?).
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to post that. Its a good article about etiquette and self-empowerment, but that's still not what the original issue was. No one here is talking about repeated creepy photos like the author of that article was unfortunately subjected to. In fact, till your article post sexually suggestive photography hadn't even been brought up, aside from me very briefly saying that there is a fine line where the legal right to public photography stops and becomes harassment and or invasion of privacy, and should be dealt with as such.
Not to mention that her analogy of "telling women not to wear short skirts if she doesn't want to be raped" is a logical fallacy designed to get quick emotional support.
There is no excuse for rape ever. Period. It is one of the most vile forms of violence a person can commit against another person.
Logically, the analogy should have read something like "telling a woman not to wear short skirts if she doesn't want attention". This makes sense because as a society we normally wear clothes that cover certain parts of our bodies, when someone doesn't cover those parts they invite attention from anyone who notices because it breaks our conception of "the norm".
For example, the US has voyeurism laws that prevent things like 'up-skirt' and 'down-blouse' photography even when a person is in public because they're making an attempt to keep 'private areas' private. If they walk outside nude however, they can't get mad that someone snapped a pic of their normally private parts.
The overarching message of the article that cosplayers shouldn't be sexually objectified because of the costumes they wear is also muddied when she says:
"If a man approached me and said: "You have a nice posterior. Allow me to photograph it.", you know what I'd do? I'd pop my booty with a smile. But what gives people the right to line up behind me and snap photographs of my butt, unaware to me?"
Here, she's not mad because someone took, or would like to take a sexually objective picture of her butt rather than her costume. She's mad because she wasn't give the choice to sexually objectify herself.
What give's those people the right to snap those creepy pics is the same principle that allows people to take any picture of any public figure. Generally speaking the rule of thumb is 'if you can see it, you can shoot it', so if she puts it out there then it's fair game for creepy guys who want to take the picture.
Some places have specific laws that prevent taking photos of a sexual nature, i.e. ass shots, without a person's expressed permission and the author of the article may have had legitimate legal grievances if she was in one of those places. I don't know, but once again that's not what my
original comment was about.
I'm not trying to piss anyone off, nor am I encouraging harassment or even rude behavior, the only thing I've said that is remotely opinion based is that I don't feel that someone snapping a pic that you have no input whether or not they are allowed to take anyway is worth dwelling on. Everything else I've said is common knowledge for anyone who knows anything about the rights of public photography.
Thanks Djlemma, glad to see that someone understands what I'm saying.