Photo courtesy rules?

[Father Kit Cool Gun Garth]

While at a long time friend's home for Thanksgiving dinner, one of the guests took out his phone and started talking video/photos of the host and other family members.
The host asked him to stop, to which he replied that it was not illegal for him to take pictures, using the 1st Amendment right to free speech.

 

Should he have ceased taking pictures at the request of the host?
If not, should he be ssked to leave?
What are your thoughts on this?

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

They can take pictures anywhere they want around my place.  It all depends on whether or not they want a broken nose or risk being banned from ever visiting me again.

[watab kid]

im not inviting anyone as a "guest" that has that habit , ive gone to a lot of trouble to avoid being "out there" and my guests are not given permission to violate my privacy - do whatever elsewhere NOT HERE 

[Alpo]

1 hour ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

What are your thoughts on this?

They should have snatched his phone out of his hand, dropped it on the floor, and smashed their heel into it.

 

Tell him it's freedom of expression, which falls under Amendment 1 - freedom of speech.

[Pat Riot]

Well, I would ask him to stop. If he would not, I would ask him if he had phone replacement insurance. I guarantee he would stop. One way or another. 

[Buckshot Bear]

His phone would have had an accident at my place. 

[Rye Miles #13621]

How rude! You’re in the host’s house and he asked you to stop…..then stop! What a jerk! Stop it or get out, no first amendment applies to a private home. 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Well there’s one cousin that’s always in the bathroom or hiding behind someone in group pictures.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

As a general rule, if you have a right to be there, you have a right to see it and if you can see it, you can record it.  Of course, your right to be there can be revoked on private property by the proper authority.   There are also some states that have specific rules about audio recording and consent but that's not the topic here.  

 

I have several inlaws that are rather camera shy...probably for good reason.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Was this indoors on private property? 

Our outdoor in a public park?

 

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

Sorry Badlands,

 

Not Quite.  Freedom to Photograph/Record under the First Amendment is only applicable in public.  There is no legal presumption of "privacy" in public places.  Private property on the other hand, requires permission of the property owner.

 

In out OPs cited incident, the creep should have been told to get out.  And to take what ever family he had with and never to return as well.  After being told to leave, it's called Trespass and local law enforcement may remove and incarcerate said creep.

[Pat Riot]

In many ways I miss the days where you could just slug the butthead then throw them out. Simpler times…but then, all the spineless little tattle tales grew up and now we have this.

 

I never thought “…and the meek shall inherit the Earth” would mean spineless self-entitled douchebags could encroach on everyone with their dumbassery.

 

Wouldn’t it be funny if “meek” actually meant the above?

That lake of burning fire is just Climate Change. 

 

 

[Rye Miles #13621]

37 minutes ago, Pat Riot said:

In many ways I miss the days where you could just slug the butthead then throw them out. Simpler times…but then, all the spineless little tattle tales grew up and now we have this.

 

I never thought “…and the meek shall inherit the Earth” would mean spineless self-entitled douchebags could encroach on everyone with their dumbassery.

 

Wouldn’t it be funny if “meek” actually meant the above?

That lake of burning fire is just Climate Change. 

 

 

It's true you can't lay a hand on anyone and you also have to watch what you say ! 

[Rip Snorter]

First Rule. Don't invite jerks to your home or suffer fools in the event of misjudgment.  Can't think of a time an invited guest would behave that way.  

[Wild Eagle]

If you're invited to be with me and I ask you not to do something a reply of "its not illegal" will get you removed and never invited to be around me again.  Why would anyone have a jerk like that anywhere near them.  I have never been that hard up for a friend.

[Cypress Sun]

1 hour ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Sorry Badlands,

 

Not Quite.  Freedom to Photograph/Record under the First Amendment is only applicable in public.  There is no legal presumption of "privacy" in public places.  Private property on the other hand, requires permission of the property owner.

 

In out OPs cited incident, the creep should have been told to get out.  And to take what ever family he had with and never to return as well.  After being told to leave, it's called Trespass and local law enforcement may remove and incarcerate said creep.

 

It is indeed a strange day when I agree with both CC AND Phantom.

[Subdeacon Joe]

13 hours ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

While at a long time friend's home for Thanksgiving dinner, one of the guests took out his phone and started talking video/photos of the host and other family members.
The host asked him to stop, to which he replied that it was not illegal for him to take pictures, using the 1st Amendment right to free speech

 

I would have told him that he is not in public, I have a right to privacy in my own home, and that I'm sorry that our friendship has come to an end, please leave right now.  Also, that if he posts those to any social media or shares them in any way and I find out he will be subject to action for invasion of privacy.

[Gungadin]

See the problem isn't 'what is legal' which is the lowest definition of right, largely thanks to certain most politicians.  The problem is decency.  If one asks nicely, you shouldn't get 'it's my right' read back to you.  And for all the efforts THEY have made to legislate/push/sell tolerance we are becoming more and more intolerant when it comes to common decency and more tolerant of shall I generically say WRONG?

 

But if we are outside our home we are constantly videoed.  Like being on Red Square in Beijing.

 

In school history we learned about 'The Rise and Fall of ______'   Fill in the blank Rome, Greece...

 

Seems we could start writing that book for the USA.

[Calamity Kris]

If the photographer didn't ask my permission before snapping away, I would ask them politely to cease.  If they didn't I would gently but forcibly escort them to the door.  End of conversation.  I would then inform them if any of these images appeared on Social media, I would initiate legal action.  If that didn't get through, I would tell them it's been nice knowing them as I pushed them out the door.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

5 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Sorry Badlands,

 

Not Quite.  Freedom to Photograph/Record under the First Amendment is only applicable in public.  There is no legal presumption of "privacy" in public places.  Private property on the other hand, requires permission of the property owner.

 

In out OPs cited incident, the creep should have been told to get out.  And to take what ever family he had with and never to return as well.  After being told to leave, it's called Trespass and local law enforcement may remove and incarcerate said creep.

It would be unusual to have a police officer respond to a call at your house without a body camera these days.  There only needs to be one party consent to record audio and video.  An under cover drug agent goes to the drug dealer's house and buys illegal drugs.  The undercover agent is wired with a transmitter and a recorder.  The undercover agent is the only person that knows the recording is happening.  One party consent.  In each of these cases, the recordings are admissible in court for sending you to jail purposes.  

 

If you've got permission to be there, you can record.  Private property does not make any difference.  If the person controlling the private property does not want you recording, they can make you leave.  Of course, there's no requirement that you tell them you are recording.   The news media does undercover investigative journalism all the time.  

 

Recording for commercial purposes is a completely different issue.  There may be state specific laws about clandestine one party recording.  I think Washington D.C. may have some of these restrictions.    

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

7 hours ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

As a general rule, if you have a right to be there, you have a right to see it and if you can see it, you can record it.  Of course, your right to be there can be revoked on private property by the proper authority.   

 I disagree with this proposition. An invitation to dinner at a private home gives rise to no 'right to record' in the first place, quite apart from 'revocation'. I'd be interested in seeing some authority for the proposition, in the context of a social occassion in a private home.

Note: that it may not be a crime does not make it a right.

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Badlands Bob #61228 said:

 

If you've got permission to be there, you can record

 

Even if that's true, if the owner asks you to stop revokes the assumed "permission to record," you stop.

 

Your example of LE recording for the investigation of criminal activity is the same as saying that because police can drive at over a hundred miles an hour in a chase anyone on the road can drive over a hundred miles per hour everywhere.

 

[Badlands Bob #61228]

One-Party Consent If the consent of one party is required, you can record a conversation if you’re a party to the conversation. If you’re not a party to the conversation, you can record a conversation or phone call provided one party consents to it after having full knowledge and notice that the conversation will be recorded. Under Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) requires only that one party give consent. In addition to this Federal statute, thirty-eight (38) states and the District of Columbia have adopted a “one-party” consent requirement. Nevada has a one-party consent law, but Nevada’s Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party consent law.

 

Eleven (11) states require the consent of everybody involved in a conversation or phone call before the conversation can be recorded. Those states are: California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. These laws are sometimes referred to as “two-party” consent laws but, technically, require that all parties to a conversation must give consent before the conversation can be recorded.

[Subdeacon Joe]

That code you cite pertains to WIRE TAPPING and other surveillance.  Comparing uranium mining to making cupcakes.

 

From a law firm's site:

What to Know Before Recording Someone Without Their Consent

woman in a hoodie holding a smart phone

Whether in a public or private setting, understanding the laws behind recording someone without their permission is vital to ensure that you are doing the right and responsible thing.

 

Wherever you go in public, there is the risk of being recorded. Whether in a coffee shop or a store, security cameras are all over the place. When you walk outside the comfort of your private property, it is safe to assume that you are being recorded in some way; however, once you are on your personal property or a friend’s private property, that expectation shifts. It is important to learn the intricacies behind recording someone, both in public and private, so you can better understand when to keep your device rolling and when it is best to shut it off.

 

IS IT ILLEGAL TO RECORD SOMEONE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT WHILE IN PUBLIC?

The simple answer to this question is: no. When you are in a public setting such as a concert, grocery store, a park, and many others, recordings are permitted. The primary motivator for recording in these types of atmospheres is to ensure safety and enhanced security. Once you leave your private property, you should not be expecting full privacy. Thus, recording in appropriate settings when in public is permitted. However, even in public, there are certain places with expected levels of privacy where recording is not allowed, such as bathrooms and dressing rooms.

 

IS IT ILLEGAL TO RECORD SOMEONE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT WHILE IN PRIVATE?

While outside of the public eye, there is an expected level of privacy, making it illegal to record someone without their permission in some circumstances. If you are on personal property, it is up to the owner’s discretion if photos and videos are allowed. If the owner forbids pictures and videos, and you decide to take or record them anyway, you may be told to leave the property or even arrested for disobeying the owner’s requests.

 

WIRETAPPING LAWS: ONE-PARTY CONSENT STATES VS. ALL-PARTY CONSENT STATES

There are currently 36 states, as well as the District of Columbia, that are one-party states. A one-party state means that as long as you are a part of the conversation, you can record that conversation without the other party’s consent.

 

There are currently 11 states that have all-party consent: California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. All-party consent means that for the audio recording to be taken legally, all parties involved need to communicate that recording the conversation is okay.

 

Currently, Michigan, Connecticut, and Oregon have a mix of both one-party and all-party consent that varies based on circumstances. Vermont is not operating with either standard, as they currently have no clear law on recording without knowledge.

 

 

[Badlands Bob #61228]

If the owner forbids pictures and videos, and you decide to take or record them anyway, you may be told to leave the property or even arrested for disobeying the owner’s requests.

 

That's called Criminal Trespass.  You can ask somebody to leave your property for any reason, including recording or taking pictures.  They wouldn't be arrested for taking the pictures.  They would be arrested for not leaving after being told to by the owner.  You could tell someone to leave for wearing green tennis shoes.  If they failed to leave, they wouldn't be arrested for wearing green tennis shoes.  They would be arrested for not leaving. Criminal Trespass.

[bgavin]

The above behavior is exactly why we don't have holiday dinners with the liberal in-laws.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

13 minutes ago, bgavin said:

The above behavior is exactly why we don't have holiday dinners with the liberal in-laws.

 

I don't know the politics of my many in-laws, at least in any detail. I don't know the politics of my four brothers in any specific ways, having never had an expressly political discussion with any of them.

 

Among other things, this makes all holidays, dinners, and gatherings happy and pleasant ocassions.

[Texas Joker]

While this is a learned discussion on the LEGAL merits it seems to overlook one important concept in the OPs question: Courtesy.

 

A few folks pointed out if a host asks a good guest should comply.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

It's pretty obvious that the law and common courtesy are two different things.  

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

12 hours ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Private property on the other hand, requires permission of the property owner.

 

SCOTUS ruled that anyone can photograph or video anything they can see with the naked eye as long as the person does it from a public place/space. So someone standing on a public sidewalk can photograph private property including interior space. Ton's of videos on the internet with vidiographers doing this very thing. Cops come and they get sent away.

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

5 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

WIRETAPPING LAWS: ONE-PARTY CONSENT STATES VS. ALL-PARTY CONSENT STATES

The wiretapping laws cover audio only. The courts have ruled videos with sound are excluded.

[Buckshot Bear]

16 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

SCOTUS ruled that anyone can photograph or video anything they can see with the naked eye as long as the person does it from a public place/space. So someone standing on a public sidewalk can photograph private property including interior space. Ton's of videos on the internet with vidiographers doing this very thing. Cops come and they get sent away.

 

Wouldn't that be an abuse of their rights?

 

I  watch those First Amendment Auditors on YT and some of them have made a lot of $$$ from suing police. 

[watab kid]

16 hours ago, Pat Riot said:

In many ways I miss the days where you could just slug the butthead then throw them out. Simpler times…but then, all the spineless little tattle tales grew up and now we have this.

 

I never thought “…and the meek shall inherit the Earth” would mean spineless self-entitled douchebags could encroach on everyone with their dumbassery.

 

Wouldn’t it be funny if “meek” actually meant the above?

That lake of burning fire is just Climate Change. 

 

 

or the days when you got backup from all your friends and family to throw them out , it seems too many think those are going to get the fame .....no fortune , but some kinda momentary youtube kinda fame 

[Subdeacon Joe]

The mentality of "I can do whatever I what anywhere I'm allowed to go" is extreme narcissism in that it denies the idea that anyone else has rights.    

[Pat Riot]

1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

The mentality of "I can do whatever I what anywhere I'm allowed to go" is extreme narcissism in that it denies the idea that anyone else has rights.    

That’s an excellent point Joe.