Mom's Viral Shaming of "Creep" Photographer Goes Very Very Wrong

[john_h.1]

<p>Oops.<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3073095/Mother-mistakenly-shames-dad-thought-taking-photos-kids-Facebook-post-shared-hundreds-actually-taking-selfie-Star-Wars-display-children.html<br /><br /><br /></p>

[William Michael]

<p>Oops indeed.</p>

<p>I'm fairly sure that Victoria has an Inclosed Lands Protection Act (later Enclosed Lands Act) similar to New South Wales.</p>

<p>Westfield Shopping Centres, in NSW, use that Act to prohibit Photography within their property, so both parties have the "oops factor" on that issue.</p>

<p>I guess the Bloke could follow up apropos her publication on Facebook. I think that one day (perhaps already happened and I am not aware of it) someone is going to make a post on some social media forum that knocks a well healed or well connected litigant into testing those laws and seeks damages to the n^th degree. For example, if the Bloke were a QC with a spare few hours in his day, it could be a living hell for years for that Woman.</p>

<p>I am not sure exactly where facebook itself stands though, are they also open to litigation? I understand they appear watertight but has anyone ever challenged that?</p>

<p>With the Australian Government recently directing the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) to capture a set of named international companies (‘google’ and the like) for allegedly avoiding their tax obligation here and also the public sentiment is NOT with those big companies, the public generally, whilst maybe not fully backing the Bloke to sue the Woman, their sympathy might be behind him in seeking some recompense from Facebook.</p>

<p>All in all, it is a sad state of affairs: going off half cocked has started wars; resulted in people being beaten up; and etc.</p>

<p>Don’t have much of an opinion on the Coppers, the article reports second hand what they did and said and how they said it. I think it likely the woman asked or implied that the Bloke was a sex offender and the Copper answered that if he were the matter would be dealt with properly.</p>

<p>On the face of it - Very dumb move by the woman, in my opinion.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>BTW - You're a widely read person, I guess that's what you do in your spare time to relax. </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>He asked for an apology? Eff that. The only thing he should be doing is lawyer shopping, and I hope he finds a good one.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The ubiquity of unthinking and emotionally-driven people using Facebook for revenge is astounding. Almost as astounding as what a litigious society we've become. Neither Facebook nor our courts should be the first place we turn to remedy social situations that go awry. She shouldn't have petulantly shouted to the world via social networking and he needn't seek a remedy through the courts, if he is offered a public apology and can then just move on.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"You're a widely read person, I guess that's what you do in your spare time to relax."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is also photography. Perilous as it may be these days.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>An apology would have been in order if she had simply had a discussion with him or called police or security and things shook out in a civil manner. <br /><br />Once it went from a private matter to a public "shaming"-- legally, a libel-- the remedies available are nothing new. There's black letter law dating back 2,000 years for exactly this situation.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"There is also photography. Perilous as it may be these days."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>haha And let that be a lesson to you - Don't bring your camera down here!</p>

<p>The "Mad Max" cars were on display at the Sydney Opera House today ahead of the premier of the new movie. Lots of kids around (Heaven only knows why they all weren’t at school?) Lots of "Selfies" were being taken by all sorts of people (many appearing quite suspicious to me). Most were using camera phones and the cars were in the background. I struck up a conversation with a couple from Virginia (the USA one) . . . not sure if they had been warned about the perilous situation. I offered to take their picture, I did. I used their camera. Now I am not sure about the copyright. . . <br /> I’ll wait for you to post the next headline . . .</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Once it went from a private matter to a public "shaming"-- legally, a libel-- the remedies available are nothing new. There's black letter law dating back 2,000 years for exactly this situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure about any 'Black Letter Law' that covers this situation. Commonly referred to as ‘Libel’, I think the law, here, which covers that particular situation is the Law of Defamation. <a href="http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/defamation-law-for-material-published-after-january-2006/">A reasonable lay outline of that law is found here.</a></p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“The ubiquity of unthinking”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh! What a most wonderful phrase. I’ll borrow that one. I promise to send you the royalties.</p>

<p>More seriously though, the balance of the 'unthinkingness' which you apply to both the Bloke revenging (via the courts) the initial wrongful and vengeful action of the Woman, is certainly a well balanced application of that ‘unthinkingness’ label. It is also an articulate snapshot of the whole bloody mess and also where a lot of Societies are heading.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>. . . gotta go and 'Facebook Search' that Couple from Virginia - if they posted that picture I took, I'll sue the pants off them!</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>The comment referred to whether or not lawsuits for libel are some kind of new thing -- ie: Fred's comment on "what a litigious society we've become." The law I referred to is ancient Roman libel law. I made that comment in the context that libel suits are, in fact, not some recent phenomenon.<br /><br />But thanks anyway for the link about Australian law. According to the site you linked to, the woman would not have a defense against a defamation lawsuit.<br /><br />We are talking about being accused one of the most heinous crimes, that of a sex offender, where it would appear no such thing occured.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>The comment referred to . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Damon OK, Thanks, I misunderstood what you meant.</p>

<p>*</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> . . . According to the site you linked to,<strong><em> the woman would not have a defense</em> </strong>against a defamation lawsuit.<br /><br />We are talking about being accused one of the most heinous crimes . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As we would say: <em>"I don't think she would have one hope in hell"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I doubt that the Bloke will move on it though.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>WW</p>

[peter_doucette]

<p>And if he was using a "Real" camera, this never would have happened. I do understand her going to security or the police, but public shaming was not the right thing to do. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>William, let me try to explain that I wasn't balancing this bloke's hypothetical* response with the woman's initial specific actions. The first part of my statement was meant to suggest that we've had a lot of stories of revenge on social media and we've had a big increase in lawsuits in recent decades. It was more about our immediate response to being wronged (or feeling wronged) than these specific instances. Neither state of affairs seems terribly community-minded or socially supportive. The second part was to suggest that I don't think either specific action was or would be necessary. Why that equates or balances the actions in your mind, as if the one specific action and the other specific action were of similar moral standing, only you can say.</p>

<p>*At least so far the man is "weighing his legal options" but is not suing and instead is asking for a public apology, so at least for now, he and I agree on a course of action. If it's exoneration of his name he seeks, all this publicity is helping him get that. Of course he shouldn't have been put in this position in the first place.</p>

<p>I was balancing the REACTION OF A GENERAL PUBLIC telling everyone who is wronged to go to court with the reaction of people who will immediately sign on to social media to air their wrongs. The actions and reactions aren't equivalent or balanced. But the rush to a specific kind of unnecessary and very often unhelpful remedy may be.</p>

<p>Damon, I didn't say libel doesn't go back a long ways. I said that we are a more litigious society now than we used to be.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Fred, I assumed that you were using <strong>metaphor</strong> as a writing style.</p>

<p>In my response I was certainly using <strong>two metaphors</strong>. The first metaphor of the Bloke to symbolize the "litigious society" and the second metaphor, the Woman, to represent the "half cocked reaction and trial by Social Media".</p>

<p>Sorry for the confusion, my initiating (or continuing) two metaphors was stylistic and not meant to imply that either you or I were equating, comparing, contrasting, measuring any degree of "wrongness" of any action or proposed action by either the Bloke and Woman.</p>

<p>And also I was meaning that those to metaphors summarized: "<em>an articulate snapshot of the whole bloody mess and also where a lot of Societies are heading."</em></p>

<p>WW</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thanks for the clarification, William. I now realize we were on the same page. Looking forward to the royalty checks, by the way!</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I may have missed this not reading every word here, but it appears from the account cited here that, if the man taking the selfie is telling the truth, then the woman did not just over-react, she outright lied about what was done and said.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"she outright lied about what was done and said."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>She likely misunderstood his action rather than lied. If she indeed misunderstand and thought her kids were compromised, and having no recourse, I can sort of understand why she took to the internet to vent her grievance. </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>The event according to him:</p>

<p >"The man said he took a quick selfie and saw a number of kids sitting down nearby and lining up to get their photo taken.</p>

<p >‘I said “I’ll only be a second, I’m taking a selfie to send to my kids.” There was no parent present."</p>

<br />The event according to her:

 

"She claimed the man approached her children while they were sitting watching Frozen on a screen in the children's clothing section at Target.

<p >'He said 'hey kids' they looked up and he took a photo, then he said I'm sending this to a 16 yr old,' she wrote on Facebook."</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Those two accounts are not quite compatible. <br /></p>

 

 

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Since none of us was there, which account is completely true, and which one not, and how much comes down to misunderstandings - we cannot judge that. So adding proverbial fuel to the fire has little use, we're just going on a single newspaper article. Whatever we think about it, is just a guess.<br>

Full agree with Fred and WW - there is a lot of overreaction and too much resorting to drastic solutions rather than seeking to resolve things in a direct face-to-face manner.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I agree for the most part, but I must say that if one account is true the other cannot be. Assumptions are one thing, but saying one thing is not saying the other. If the photographer's account is true, then I hope he pursues it further, because far far too many people seem to believe that creative inaccuracy is acceptable if you're convinced you're in the right. I know this is just a little local flap, but lives are destroyed and cities go up in flames because someone who thinks he's the good guy decides to embellish the sins of the bad guy.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Matthew, a system (not the court system) seems to be working just fine. Whatever happened, both sides are obviously now being given a hearing publicly. The woman posted and the man's response is now being made public and possibly getting a wider hearing than the initial attack on him. A court case won't stop the assumptions and side-taking, as we see with so many high-profile court cases. People on each side will either think the decision of the judge or jury is right or wrong, depending on how they have prejudged the matter. And it will needlessly take up valuable court time. Suggesting that lives here are being "destroyed" and cities are going up "in flames" seems a bit of hyperbole. The man's character has been assassinated by one shrill woman on Facebook. It has caused him grief. If gone unanswered and if it HYPOTHETICALLY led to further consequences, his life COULD HAVE BEEN destroyed. But to move from that hypothetical (which is clearly NOT happening) to the assertion of a reality is a big leap. As a matter of fact, he's been given the chance to redeem himself in the public eye and I suspect most people following the story put him on top and see him as more worthy of respect than his accuser, who is now the object of ridicule, in great part due to her own foolish actions. I don't see that occupying a court with this would make things any better. The situation seems to be playing out in a very appropriate and lesson-generating manner without a judge or a jury. It's a case where the two parties, the media, and the general public all seem to be helping establish a reasonable picture of what happened and a reasonable picture of both people involved. </p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I agree that this case seems to be following a reasonable course, and that if the woman distorted her account it's likely to come out. My observation was more general, obviously, but I do think there is a real difference between varying interpretation of a thing and making up things that do not occur, and as a general observation I think too many people consider the second thing an extreme version of the first, an idea with which I disagree. It's a small instance here, but whether it involves a panicky mother misquoting a man in a mall or a political pundit lying about his opponents, or a policeman planting evidence, it's a bad habit.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"... having no recourse, I can sort of understand why she took to the internet to vent her grievance."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's almost always another recourse other than slandering someone on social media as the first step. Anyone who would do that as a first recourse probably has serious personality issues and isn't likely to be amenable to any sort of reasonable conversation or compromise. I wouldn't waste my breath or energy demanding an apology. Folks like that rarely admit they're wrong or responsible for any of their hotheaded blunders. If anything they'll retrench, double down on their idiocy and get louder and crazier. Just let it go and move on.<br>

<br>

Doing photography in public for more than 40 years I've been approached by people several times, asking what I was doing. Sometimes it's cops, sometimes security guards, usually ordinary folks. The last time I caught any flak from cops and security guards was in the first few years after the 9/11 tragedies. Since then, folks have chilled out. Any questions are usually resolved sensibly and often lead to a friendly chat about photography in general, and occasionally some posed portraits. <br>

<br>

The tiny handful of instances that resulted in minor tiffs still didn't lead to wild accusations. They were simply irritated at being photographed. There was a lady on a train, probably tired and cranky after a long day. And a horse drawn carriage driver in Central Park - mostly he wanted me to pay for the privilege of photographing him and his horse. Those incidents occurred when I was a kid and probably trying to be sneaky rather than up-front about taking photos.<br>

<br>

And even that hasn't occurred with me in decades - the last time was around 1980. There was a small shop owner who had fled a then-Soviet bloc country and was still suspicious of surveillance. He saw me taking photographs outside his shop and thought I was spying on him. Later I showed him the contact sheets - there were a couple of photos of a newsstand with an ironic juxtaposition of headlines. No photos of the man or his shop. Problem solved. No screaming wild accusations about Bolsheviks and pedophiles infiltrating his beer cooler.<br>

<br>

The only time I've changed my practice wasn't due to parents asking me what I was photographing at school events - I would simply show them the photos I was taking for a family member whose kids were school athletes, cheerleaders or performers in school plays. No problem. But I stopped taking photos at school events around 2006 when an idiotic Texas law (since rescinded) made it too risky to photograph in schools or anywhere that an over-angsty police officer might interpret prurient interest where none existed. But I continued with street photography elsewhere, and with documentary photography inside a children's hospital with permission of the parents and hospital staff.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<blockquote>

<p>...whether it involves a panicky mother misquoting a man in a mall or a political pundit lying about his opponents, or a policeman planting evidence, it's a bad habit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Exactly. And lives could easily be ruined, at the very least, in this case. Can you imagine the nightmare of people believing that lie about you? Likely outcome is prison (Do you know what the other prisoners would do to that man?) lifetime registered sex offender status, ruined marriage and other relationships. Does anyone take those things lightly? A couple of people in this thread apparently do. I don't.<br /><br />I would want more than an apology. I'd want some kind of legal documentation to make sure this doesn't come back to bite him. I'd want subpoenas for whatever security video recordings exist. That's what courtrooms are for. No reason to shy away from using the courts for one of the purposes for which they are intended. Cops and prosecutors sure as hell don't, and they are the experts-- you can bet if things had gone sideways for him, the victim would be the one called before a judge.<br /><br />Let judges decide what cases do and do not belong in their courtrooms. If a judge decides a case is "frivolous"-- a term of art, not just what people call lawsuits they don't agree with-- then let the judge sanction the attorney who brought the suit. <br /><br />That woman needs to be made an example. You don't just go around accusing people of horrible crimes on a whim. There are consequences.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p><a href="http://www.tortreformtruth.com/">Good information about so called, "Tort reform."</a><br /><br /></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>A couple of people in this thread apparently do. I don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Damon, while this kind of specious and <em>ad hominem</em> argumentation might make for a good TV court appearance, I'm not sure it flies here. I take prison beatings and rape seriously. I take sex offender status seriously. I take ruined marriage seriously. But I don't take you seriously if you're relating any of that to this case, because these things simply and plainly didn't happen! Trying to paint those you disagree with as uncaring beasts who take serious things lightly is really a very poor excuse for an argument.<br>

<br>

Now, to be fair, there seems to me some merit to your concern that this could come back to bite him, and that making things more official and legal could help prevent that possibility. I think at this point, it's a remote chance that he'd somehow get in trouble for actions that are now pretty clearly shown to have been benign and simply misunderstood by a much-too-quick-to-react person. If he wants to expend the time, money, and energy in such a prophylactic court battle at this point, I suppose he should do just that. If it were me, I'd be doggone angry about it, but I'd sooner let it go, especially if I did get a public apology, which would go a long way toward obviating any future accusations against me as a result of these particular actions, than continue the experience through a court battle. In short, I'd be happy to see it over sooner rather than later.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Plainly didn't happen. And yet, here I am, thousands of miles away, discussing it. <br /><br />Just be glad it's not you. And, if something like this happens to you, I wish you luck getting this "public apology" you believe in.<br /><br />Where and how that would happen, with some kind documentation that his employers, family, friends and enemies alike could see, outside of a courtroom, I'm not clear. <br /><br /><br /></p>