Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year
-
@lufins-dad said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
the woman did not wish to be filmed. Unfortunately, the whole filming in public thing is still very murky but there doesn’t seem to be a right to privacy in a public space, so the lady recording may have been legally okay to do the recording but that doesn’t necessarily mean she was morally or ethically right.
No, it's not. As a matter of fact, few things are more crystal clear, legally, than this. Know your laws.
If you're in a public space—and that's a huge if, I'll get to that in a second—you can record anyone, anywhere, anytime. If you're hanging out in a park, I could record your kids in 4K and there's literally nothing you can do about it. You need to have a reasonable expectation of privacy or prove that the recording paints you in false light for you to even have a shred of a case.
If you're on private property, it's 100% up to the property owners. Victoria's Secret could have come after this woman for recording in their store without permission.
And anyway, I don't think the woman was being a bitch. I think it was a confluence of unfortunate things: the white woman was putting on a show and she's obviously a nutter, and the black woman has it in her head that the world is racist and sees everything through that lens. (Which, I have to give her partial credit for, because the white lady by the counter actually blamed the black woman for causing the scene and told her to leave the store.)
@aqua-letifer said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
(Which, I have to give her partial credit for, because the white lady by the counter actually blamed the black woman for causing the scene and told her to leave the store.)
I think she asked her to walk away or leave her alone. Which is an obvious request to make when a crumbled whimpering person is being giggled at and toyed with.
-
What I don’t get is why this is being turned into a race issue. Nothing racist in there that I saw… Mind you, I just skimmed it.
-
What I don’t get is why this is being turned into a race issue. Nothing racist in there that I saw… Mind you, I just skimmed it.
@lufins-dad said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
What I don’t get is why this is being turned into a race issue. Nothing racist in there that I saw… Mind you, I just skimmed it.
The woman behind the camera viewed it that way from the get-go. She was filming it, and thoroughly enjoying it, because she knew it would play virally as a race incident.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
@lufins-dad said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
the woman did not wish to be filmed. Unfortunately, the whole filming in public thing is still very murky but there doesn’t seem to be a right to privacy in a public space, so the lady recording may have been legally okay to do the recording but that doesn’t necessarily mean she was morally or ethically right.
No, it's not. As a matter of fact, few things are more crystal clear, legally, than this. Know your laws.
If you're in a public space—and that's a huge if, I'll get to that in a second—you can record anyone, anywhere, anytime. If you're hanging out in a park, I could record your kids in 4K and there's literally nothing you can do about it. You need to have a reasonable expectation of privacy or prove that the recording paints you in false light for you to even have a shred of a case.
If you're on private property, it's 100% up to the property owners. Victoria's Secret could have come after this woman for recording in their store without permission.
And anyway, I don't think the woman was being a bitch. I think it was a confluence of unfortunate things: the white woman was putting on a show and she's obviously a nutter, and the black woman has it in her head that the world is racist and sees everything through that lens. (Which, I have to give her partial credit for, because the white lady by the counter actually blamed the black woman for causing the scene and told her to leave the store.)
I actually know a bit on the subject and it gets very murky when somebody is posting video WITH audio. Believe it or not, that is a huge distinction legally. In addition, most businesses actually have rules banning recording or video without getting consent from the store management. My bet is that Victoria’s Secret has such a policy, especially considering the nature of their business. It’s just that most businesses don’t choose to enforce that rule. If that is their policy, however, what is their responsibility in this situation? Are they required to enforce that rule? My guess is there could be some liability…
@lufins-dad said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
I actually know a bit on the subject and it gets very murky when somebody is posting video WITH audio. Believe it or not, that is a huge distinction legally.
Yeah, fair enough. I did know that, just didn't completely think it through. I had in mind photos taken in public, which is a lot simpler. (I've had a couple of run-ins with police in D.C. about that. They were concerned I was taking photos of security stuff outside government buildings. I showed them my photos just to get them to leave me alone, because although legally I was compelled to do no such thing, I also didn't want to be put on a(nother?) list.)
In addition, most businesses actually have rules banning recording or video without getting consent from the store management. My bet is that Victoria’s Secret has such a policy, especially considering the nature of their business.
There's no way Victoria's Secret doesn't have such a policy.
It’s just that most businesses don’t choose to enforce that rule. If that is their policy, however, what is their responsibility in this situation? Are they required to enforce that rule? My guess is there could be some liability…
I think the chances of their coming down on this black woman, who's already successfully playing to the angry mob, is zero.
Please love yourself.
-
An armed society is a polite society.
-
@jolly said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
An armed society is a polite society.
Which do you think is more polite, South Africa or Canada?
The solution to what happened in that store isn't to give everybody guns. A woman who rolls around like that person really shouldn't be packing.
-
Yeah, but it would take care of being filmed against your wishes.
-
@lufins-dad said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
I actually know a bit on the subject and it gets very murky when somebody is posting video WITH audio. Believe it or not, that is a huge distinction legally.
Yeah, fair enough. I did know that, just didn't completely think it through. I had in mind photos taken in public, which is a lot simpler. (I've had a couple of run-ins with police in D.C. about that. They were concerned I was taking photos of security stuff outside government buildings. I showed them my photos just to get them to leave me alone, because although legally I was compelled to do no such thing, I also didn't want to be put on a(nother?) list.)
In addition, most businesses actually have rules banning recording or video without getting consent from the store management. My bet is that Victoria’s Secret has such a policy, especially considering the nature of their business.
There's no way Victoria's Secret doesn't have such a policy.
It’s just that most businesses don’t choose to enforce that rule. If that is their policy, however, what is their responsibility in this situation? Are they required to enforce that rule? My guess is there could be some liability…
I think the chances of their coming down on this black woman, who's already successfully playing to the angry mob, is zero.
@aqua-letifer said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
@lufins-dad said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
I actually know a bit on the subject and it gets very murky when somebody is posting video WITH audio. Believe it or not, that is a huge distinction legally.
Yeah, fair enough. I did know that, just didn't completely think it through. I had in mind photos taken in public, which is a lot simpler. (I've had a couple of run-ins with police in D.C. about that. They were concerned I was taking photos of security stuff outside government buildings. I showed them my photos just to get them to leave me alone, because although legally I was compelled to do no such thing, I also didn't want to be put on a(nother?) list.)
In addition, most businesses actually have rules banning recording or video without getting consent from the store management. My bet is that Victoria’s Secret has such a policy, especially considering the nature of their business.
There's no way Victoria's Secret doesn't have such a policy.
It’s just that most businesses don’t choose to enforce that rule. If that is their policy, however, what is their responsibility in this situation? Are they required to enforce that rule? My guess is there could be some liability…
I think the chances of their coming down on this black woman, who's already successfully playing to the angry mob, is zero.
Oh, I don't think they come down on the black woman. I think they come down on Victoria's Secret. See, if there is a no video or recording policy at Victoria's Secret, then the case can be made that Abigail does have an expectation of privacy based on Victoria's Secret policies, and if the store management and personnel did not enforce that policy when Abigail is asking for that right, then she has a case against them. A very big case...
-
@aqua-letifer said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
@lufins-dad said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
I actually know a bit on the subject and it gets very murky when somebody is posting video WITH audio. Believe it or not, that is a huge distinction legally.
Yeah, fair enough. I did know that, just didn't completely think it through. I had in mind photos taken in public, which is a lot simpler. (I've had a couple of run-ins with police in D.C. about that. They were concerned I was taking photos of security stuff outside government buildings. I showed them my photos just to get them to leave me alone, because although legally I was compelled to do no such thing, I also didn't want to be put on a(nother?) list.)
In addition, most businesses actually have rules banning recording or video without getting consent from the store management. My bet is that Victoria’s Secret has such a policy, especially considering the nature of their business.
There's no way Victoria's Secret doesn't have such a policy.
It’s just that most businesses don’t choose to enforce that rule. If that is their policy, however, what is their responsibility in this situation? Are they required to enforce that rule? My guess is there could be some liability…
I think the chances of their coming down on this black woman, who's already successfully playing to the angry mob, is zero.
Oh, I don't think they come down on the black woman. I think they come down on Victoria's Secret. See, if there is a no video or recording policy at Victoria's Secret, then the case can be made that Abigail does have an expectation of privacy based on Victoria's Secret policies, and if the store management and personnel did not enforce that policy when Abigail is asking for that right, then she has a case against them. A very big case...
@lufins-dad said in Abigail Elphick: Absurdist Performance Artist of the Year:
then the case can be made that Abigail does have an expectation of privacy based on Victoria's Secret policies,
No way. The public has access to the store and she knows she was around strangers. Also, the supposed policy you're suggesting isn't clearly labeled anywhere in the store. That'd never fly.
