-Caveat Lector-
June:
>>Emboldened by a recent federal appeals court ruling granting broad First
> >Amendment protection for menacing political speech on the Internet,
>
>Which is NOT the same thing as displaying video images taken without the
>permission of the people shown in those videos.
I wondered about this as well.
> Try doing that, and you'll soon find yourself running afoul of privacy
> laws in many jurisdictions...
Curious; how do such laws apply to people walking into a business
establishment from a public street? Remember Tampa's camera
defense? Presumably, "people walking on a public street have no reasonable
expectation of privacy." :-)
>and since this is planned for the Internet, a person shown on one of these
>webcams could probably successfully sue for violation of privacy even if no
>law addressing Internet and/or video "peeping Toms" exists in the victim's
>own jurisdiction...
There again. . .
>the very nature of the Internet means that it IS
>available in jurisdictions where such anti-electronic-peeping-Tom laws DO
>exist...
True. I guess this guy would have to figure out away to block traffic from
these jurisdictions.
> >anti-abortion activist has launched Abortioncams.com, a site displaying
> >photographs and video footage of patients, doctors and employees entering
> >and leaving abortion clinics in 21 states.
>
>Whose paying for the webcams, and the rent for wherever these webcams will
>be set up...
From what I gathered going to the website (an unpleasant experience to say
the least), such footage is obtained through/by volunteers.
>presumably these cams will NOT be set up directly ON the
>abortion clinic property,
Passers by either on foot or by car? Sidewalks across the street?
> else they could be easily removed as it would be
>an issue of trespassing on private property.
Only if charges were raised by property owners.
> >Four legal experts
>
>Who are not named...
As ever :-)
> >say the site is probably protected under the First Amendment.
>
>Bullshit. It violates privacy.
The devil is in the *probably.*
>I could set up a webcam pointing into Gary Condit's bedroom and argue that I
>m doing so for political reasons and argue First Amendment rights...but the
>fact is, I'd be violating Condit's right to privacy, a right that has been
>upheld in the courts.
Yes, for private citizens. From what I understand, the line between public
figure and private citizen is a blurry one at best.
Edward ><+>
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." ~ St. John Chrysostom
http://www.global-connector.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reality_pump/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
