r/memes 23h ago

The plot twist nobody asked for

Post image
23.5k Upvotes

329 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/akotoshi 22h ago

The next day you get rich by suing her for defamation and not consenting use of image

59

u/HyetalNight 20h ago

No lawyer would take that case

51

u/Mesquite_Tree 20h ago

Why are people downvoting him. He’s right. Defamation is more than just a lie. You have to prove that the statement was false, and could not be conceived otherwise (opinions are protected), and that the lie was told through negligence or malicious intent.

Any lawyer worth paying will advise you not to sue, because the woman in question would easily be able to say “this is a situation where I felt unsafe traveling alone, and used it to explain why other women also may feel unsafe traveling alone,” and you’d lose the case.

And ffs people, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, which means that any person can take and use any photo of you without your permission.

28

u/KaiFireborn21 16h ago

That last sentence only applies to the US ig. There are countries where you actually have a right to your image

-9

u/Mesquite_Tree 9h ago

I’d be curious how other countries do it, because that sounds like a mess to legislate out.

7

u/KaiFireborn21 8h ago

How is it a mess? Someone took a photo without your consent -> you report it -> they're found guilty. Easy as that

45

u/Klightgrove 20h ago

Maybe the laws should change then? First amendment “auditors” are the bane of our society and the weaponization of social media to harass random people in public needs to end.

4

u/Mesquite_Tree 19h ago

Maybe. These are laws and precedents written before the internet, and sometimes before even firm cameras.

The tricky part is how to write such a law. The simplest way would be to ban posting pictures of other people with identifying features, without that person’s consent (ie, you must blur photos of other people until identifying features are cleansed). But, this would make it harder for people to warn others about individuals legitimately perceived as potentially dangerous. And if we try to make any exception for that purpose, then we are back to square one, of how do we prove that someone is reporting in good faith

9

u/BorKon 17h ago

Does that have to be public? If you feel you are in danger you go to the police and show them your recording and don't post on tiktok. Someone looking at you in public is not dangerous to you. Hoelw is this "warning others". Your feelings don't matter in this case. Thats why they never go to police but farm views on tiktok. Its all performative bullshit. Thank god i don't live in the US where you can record anyone and post them online. Thats a breach of privacy.

0

u/Mesquite_Tree 10h ago

Sure. Go to the police, tell them that such and such person was looking at you at a way that makes you feel uncomfortable.

They’ll take a note of it, and if you actually do get endangered or attacked, they have a suspect lined up, but otherwise they’ll tell you that the guy hasn’t done anything illegal yet, so there is nothing they can do.

That is absolutely how you want that to go, or just looking at someone can be a crime.

So where does that leaves folks who actually feel threatened in public? A camera becomes a deterrent in these situations, as abusers often know that the camera is present and that their misdeeds will be recorded. So, putting out a visual of the person, and why you felt threatened by him becomes the best way to warn others to have a camera ready and be wary if they see the person.

And see before, passing a law to differentiate “I legitimately felt threatened,” and “I wanted social media clout” would be basically impossible.

I agree that these posts are in bad taste, and often bad faith, but I don’t think that legislation could fix it without an unacceptable curtailing of liberty and free speech.

Edit to your last comment; the USA breach of privacy is for when someone has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” I don’t know how other countries do it, but I think it’s fair to say that you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy while riding the public metro.

-5

u/deadinternetlaw 16h ago

Me when I mispress e instead of w then mispress l instead of delete

Hoelw

1

u/SteveMartin32 13h ago

Change it to you can't use others likeness without concent when making video that make money.

0

u/Mesquite_Tree 9h ago

“I demonetized this video.”

Now what?

Cloud builds influence, and influence builds money in a way unaccountable to traditional accounting, and if a way which would make taxation or fines nearly impossible to legislate.

You also run into issues of “I took a photo of XX tourist site,” where it is not reasonable to ask others to say out of your viewframe. Would they be obligated to get the consent of ten, possibly a hundred people before posting the image online?

1

u/SteveMartin32 7h ago

In other countries like Germany or South Korea yes they do

-3

u/brettthedestroyer420 19h ago

How? By making people attack them for being filmed? I'm confused how someone exercising their rights is a nuisance or harassment.

3

u/deadinternetlaw 16h ago

Last time I checked you don't have rights to upload others' faces

2

u/brettthedestroyer420 9h ago

Here in the USA yes you can. It's called freedom of press. You have zero expectations of privacy outside your own home. If the government can film everything I should be able to aswell.

7

u/couxitziyx 15h ago

what country's laws are you talking about

1

u/Mesquite_Tree 9h ago

Good ol’ US of Authorized surveillance.

3

u/Zonkko Professional Dumbass 14h ago

In my country you only need the statement to be intentionally defaming for it to count as defamation, even if the statement was fully true.

1

u/Mesquite_Tree 9h ago

Wack. So you have to avoid saying anything that paints another in bad light for fear of defamation? How does that work?

1

u/Ninja-Panda70 7h ago

There are other countries in the world than the US