Non-consensual photography

[Randroid]

Suppose somebody was passing a sexual photograph of you around. It would violate your rights, you haven't consented to people viewing it. Each and every time somebody photocopied it or whatever.

If you did consent, it would not be a rights violation. It would just be you making pornography.

Children cannot consent to this, and such material can automatically be assumed to be a rights violation.

I chose to open a separate thread, as this veers off quite a bit from the original topic. Mods, feel free to merge if you think it's appropriate.

I can agree that one has the right not to have one's picture taken without consent, at least when not in public. However, does one have the right to not have those pictures viewed by third parties? Specifically, is the person who initiated force (who took and published the picture) solely responsible for the additional humiliation or is viewing non-consensually taken photographs a crime that is committed by every individual viewer?

What about paparazzi pictures? Let's say someone takes an embarrassing picture of a celebrity in their home without consent. To make this a bit more clearly cut, let's say the paparazzo was trespassing on the celebrity's property in order to take the shot. Let's also assume that it is obvious from the picture that the celebrity is not happy about being photographed. Are you a criminal for looking at these pictures? If not, are you a criminal for saving them on your hard drive?

Does the content of the picture matter? Should there be different punishments for looking at a forcefully taken image of someone picking their nose, having consensual sex, or being sexually abused? Does it matter if the subject is an adult or a child?

I hope these questions don't come off as loaded or biased. I'm honestly interested in the objectivist take on this issue.

[Jake_Ellison]

People don't have the right to not have their picture taken in public. Where would that right come from?

However, people do have the right to the product of their work. So, while someone can snap a picture of you walking down the street and own that picture without your consent, they can't force you to pose for them and then own the pictures.

What matters is the use of force or fraud. If force or fraud was used to obtain something, that something is stolen material(or more acurately, material that is the product of whatever criminal activity was employed).

--In the case of a bank robbery, the money obtained is stolen material. The penalty for knowingly accepting (or laundering) such money is quite severe, and it is based on whatever the penalty for robbery is.

--In the case of a pirated movie, the copies created are pirated material. The penalty for accepting a copy is less severe, because the actual act of piracy is a lesser crime than armed robbery.

--In the case of child porn, the copies created are material that resulted from child abuse. The penalty for accepting such materials should be in the same league as the penalty for the original crime.

[DavidOdden]

Specifically, is the person who initiated force

Taking a photograph is not the initiation of force. Force involves force, not just something you don't like. Seeing a person is not the initiation of force; nor is you being present where another person is looking the initiation of force by you. You cannot equate "everything that you don't like and didn't explicitly agree to" with force. Stay home, if you don't want to be seen.

The closest you can get is that if you lure a person onto your property with some assurance that they will not be photographed, then you have engaged in fraud.

[Randroid]

People don't have the right to not have their picture taken in public. Where would that right come from?

I made no such claim. In fact, I was explicitly agreeing with you about this.

[Randroid]

What matters is the use of force or fraud. If force or fraud was used to obtain something, that something is stolen material(or more acurately, material that is the product of whatever criminal activity was employed).

--In the case of a bank robbery, the money obtained is stolen material. The penalty for knowingly accepting (or laundering) such money is quite severe, and it is based on whatever the penalty for robbery is.

--In the case of a pirated movie, the copies created are pirated material. The penalty for accepting a copy is less severe, because the actual act of piracy is a lesser crime than armed robbery.

--In the case of child porn, the copies created are material that resulted from child abuse. The penalty for accepting such materials should be in the same league as the penalty for the original crime.

Your argument appears to make sense at first glance, but to me some cases still seem more harmless than others. Please help me find my (or your ) error. For example:

A while ago, Islamists made and published videos of them beheading or otherwise murdering unbelievers. These videos were the product of murder. Is knowingly downloading these videos a crime in the same league as murder?

Taking a photograph is not the initiation of force. Force involves force, not just something you don't like. Seeing a person is not the initiation of force; nor is you being present where another person is looking the initiation of force by you. You cannot equate "everything that you don't like and didn't explicitly agree to" with force. Stay home, if you don't want to be seen.

I agree with you thus far. However, in the example I gave, force (trespassing) was initiated in order to obtain the pictures. Doesn't that change things?

[Jake_Ellison]

Your argument appears to make sense at first glance, but to me some cases still seem more harmless than others. Please help me find my (or your ) error. For example:

A while ago, Islamists made and published videos of them beheading or otherwise murdering unbelievers. These videos were the product of murder. Is knowingly downloading these videos a crime in the same league as murder?

You have to look at both examples as a whole. I'm not going to launch into an essay on how to understand (through integration) both cases and draw he right conclusions, based on your understanding, because I'm not qualified to do so. But I am hoping someone else will.

In short though, I draw different conclusions in the two examples. In the case of child porn, the purpose of the abuse is to satisfy the customers who are downloading the material, while the Islamists do what they do for propaganda purposes. With CP, there isn't any legitimate reason to download the video, other that to investigate and help the victims. With the be-headings, those videos can constitute news, can be studied for what they are (propaganda, if one's interested in that subject), etc. Most people watch them to identify our enemies, not as the creators of the videos intended: as a tool for spreading the ideology.

And finally, yes, in some cases, Islamists who are using these videos for their intended purpose, should be prosecuted for the crimes committed in them, meaning that they should be treated as terrorists. If some Islamist leader is showing videos of be-headings to new recruits, trying to persuade them to join the cause, that man is clearly guilty of crimes "in the same league" as the murders in the videos. (in the same league is probably the wrong expression to use - a lesser accessory to a crime or someone who attempts a crime is punished based on the crime. if the crime was murder, the penalty is a fraction of the murder penalty, if it is theft, the penalty is the same fraction of the theft penalty. So please replace "in the same league as" with "dependent upon")

[Jackethan]

Intent, in the cases you point out Jake, is thought.

Is thought ever a crime?

[DavidOdden]

However, in the example I gave, force (trespassing) was initiated in order to obtain the pictures.

Yes, that matters. The point is then that we have to distinguish between unqualified "taking pictures without permission" and "violation of property rights and the subsequent taking of pictures". The rights violation is trespass.

The secondary principle that you need to invoke is that one may not profit from one's crimes; thus one cannot enjoy the fruits of your poison tree. The tertiary question is whether those fruits become permanently poison. For example, if property is stolen and cannot be restored to the owner (say that the owner later dies, with no heirs), so clearly the thief cannot be allowed to profit from his evil act, but does the stuff itself become permanently poison and only fit for destruction? If the answer to that question is "yes", then the child porn question has a trivial answer.

Is thought ever a crime?

Thought alone is never (properly) a crime: it must always be paired with an action. An action plus an intent can be a crime. An action without an intent is never (properly) a crime. That is why surgery is a possible profession.

[TheAllotrope]

Intent, in the cases you point out Jake, is thought.

Is thought ever a crime?

A big point is that this thought is linked to an action. It's not thought in a vacuum, the person is doing something and therefore can be considered culpable for any damage he causes.

Consideration of motivation has a lot to do with moral judgment. Example: Doctor gives pharmaceuticals whose side effect is an improbable life threatening condition, and one such patient has the side effect. Or, evil doctor gives drugs he knows will kill people (and for simplicity's sake, we're not talking assisted suicide). The fact that the second is acting willfully informs us that his is not an error of knowledge or judgment but one of specific malicious intent. Malicious intent combined with a negative consequence describes an offense that others have the right to penalize that person for - a crime.

[kainscalia]

Nothing too difficult on this subject. While 'making a public appearance', so to speak, on publicly accessible, non-private property, pictures are a free for all. Pictures taken in public that are transmitted over a medium such as newspapers aren't violating your rights. After all, if you're a celebrity you spend your entire public life being a magnet for cameras and attention.

Pictures taken while trespassing upon private property are different. The paparazzo in question who took the picture is being a criminal: he is trespassing and he is selling an image he got that he couldn't otherwise have acquired without violating that person's private property. Any newspaper that buys those pictures is being an accessory to a crime (and these are usually terribly obvious: how else could Mr. Smith have obtained a picture of Brad Pitt in the buff? Mr. Editor knows under what condition these were taken). The public at most is guilty of encouraging the bad taste of these tawdry publications, but 'the beef' doesn't lie with them.

I don't have a beef with the Paparazzi that are a pest on public property (even if it did piss me off that they hounded Betty White hours after Bea Arthur had died to ask her 'how she felt about her best friend's death', who does that?), but when it comes to private property sorry, Mr. Sleazeball Paparazzo, but America's freedom of speech doesn't protect your desire to break into someone's house to see what kind of underwear they wear. It would be nice if trespassers were shot on sight in these cases, but in our current justice system the trespassers could sue the land owner (which is ridiculous, since they were the ones trespassing--- if they hadn't been there, the landowner would have no reason to fire!).

[TheAllotrope]

@ Kainscalia: What about when the photographer is on publicly accessible land, with a long range camera peeking into someone's window?

I would think a more appropriate rule would be to make the subject completely off-limits when the subject is in a location obviously intended to be private. On the streets, fine, in the house, not fine (regardless of the photographer actually setting foot on the lot).

[2046]

Just an FYI, there is a thread on Google Street View in which these kinds of questions were answered:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=16396