Did the University of Missouri protesters have a legal right to privacy on their protest site? There was a recent altercation recently between media representatives and protesters at the University of Missouri. The protesters formed a human barrier around the camp, impeding free access to anyone. They also went as far as physically pushing away media representatives. The rationale, according to one Twitter account associated with the protest: “We ask for no media in the parameters so the place where people live, fellowship, and sleep can be protected from twisted insincere narratives,” a Twitter account associated with the activists later declared, adding that “it’s typically white media who don’t understand the importance of respecting black spaces.” Did they have any legal grounds to block access to the protest site, which is ostensibly a public space? Video of the altercation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S3yMzEee18
In this specific case and location, the precise location of the incident was explicitly made a public space via state law not too long before this actual event. They therefore most certainly have no right to privacy. What is interesting to me though is the other side of this, does someone have the right to record others in public spaces, or is it simply not illegal? For instance if I non-destructively and non-violently "jam" your camera by shooting a low-power IR beam at your lens, have I abridged a legal right of yours? I don't think it would be illegal to do this. I am not even positive its against the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment relates only to the dissemination of information, not the collection of it. The Constitution doesn't seem to compel the gov't to make information available, or even to make things/events/spaces observable. The various "sunshine" laws after-all had to be enacted, it wasn't part of an interpretation of the 1st Amendment. To put a finer point on it, is recording events in public spaces legal or merely lawful?
Maybe, but probably not The geographic location of the organisation is immaterial: under Article 3.2: This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: ... (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union. Posts anyone (not just EU citizens) make to Reddit (or anywhere else) while they are physically located in the EU or UK engage the GDPR. Pushift.io is therefore captured by the GDPR and any denial of that is just plain wrong. Given the denial, it is likely right out of the gate that they are non-complient. For example, they are unlikely to provided the required information under Article 14. More importantly, it seems that they have not determined the lawful basis for processing the data under Article 6 - they can possibly rely on the public interest basis (preserving deleted publication is arguably a public interest) or a legitimate interest but that requires a balancing of their interest against the data subject's. That said, the right to be forgotten is not absolute, the reasons that might be applicable here are: The data is being used to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information. The data is being used to perform a task that is being carried out in the public interest or when exercising an organization’s official authority. The data represents important information that serves the public interest, scientific research, historical research, or statistical purposes and where erasure of the data would likely to impair or halt progress towards the achievement that was the goal of the processing.
Copyright The photographer, not the subject(s) own the copyright in the picture. So, unless this was a selfie, you have no rights in the picture. Privacy If the photo was taken in circumstances where a reasonable person would expect privacy, then revealing it to others might be a tort of privacy breach. In most common law jurisdictions this area of the law is undeveloped. However, if the photo was taken from a public place (even if you were in a private place), or with your permission, this doesn’t apply. Intimate images In some jurisdictions, the distribution of intimate images without the permission of the subject is a crime. Intimate does not include a photo that is merely embarrassing. Bullying This is probably bullying behaviour but bullying per se is generally not illegal. It might be illegal if the bullying is motivated by a protected characteristic (race, age, gender, sexuality etc.) but that usually requires a context - employment, public accommodation etc. it might also be illegal hate speech even outside such an institutional framework. Similarly, within an institutional context like a workplace or school there might be policies around bullying; these might have the force of law but are probably quasi-contractural matters. However, a private person doing it because they don’t like you and want to humiliate or embarrass you is probably not doing anything illegal.
united-states In some countries there are laws prohibiting publishing a person's picture without that person's consent. The US has no such general rule, and many other countries do not either. The details of such laws, where they exist, vary from country to country. In the US there are two kinds of legal action that might be used by a person to stop that person's image from being published. These are a suit for invasion of privacy, and a suit to enforce a person's right of publicity, also called a right of personality. These torts vary from state to state, and are not recognized at all in some states. Invasion of Privacy This has several variants, such as &quot;intrusion upon seclusion&quot;, and &quot;disclosure of private facts&quot;. Intrusion generally applies when someone has entered a private place, such as a dwelling, without permission, and has then taken a photograph, made an audio or video recording, or perhaps a written account, and has published or attempted to publish the image, recording or account. If and only if the publication would be &quot;highly offensive to a reasonable person&quot; then the subject or lawful occupant of the place invaded may be able to obtain money damages, or an injunction against publication. This would not apply to the fact pattern in the question, because the parents would have had a right to be in their own home, or anywhere that such baby photos are likely to have been taken. Intrusion can also apply to one who observes private activities without permission, even if no recording is made. But the &quot;highly offensive&quot; standard still applies. A &quot;private facts&quot; case generally applies when a person (or a small group, such as a family) has attempted to keep certain facts private, but some other person or business has published them (or attempted to publish them). A successful suit will in most states that allow such suits require evidence of some positive effort to keep the facts private, and that the publication would be &quot;highly offensive to a reasonable person&quot;. This might possibly apply in the fact pattern described in the question. But note that the &quot;highly offensive&quot; standard applied to both of these privacy torts. Most typical baby pictures would not be considered &quot;highly offensive&quot;, this is a fairly high bar. It would be a decision ultimately made by the jury or other finder of fact, I believe. For comparison, peeping on a couple having sex in a hotel room has been found to be highly offensive. When a person had sex with another, and had secretly arranged to record a video of the sexual encounter, and later distributed it, that was found to be highly offensive. Right of Publicity This generally prohibits using a person's, name, image or likeness, or &quot;persona&quot; to endorse or advertise anything, or for other commercial purposes, without consent. It is most often applied to unauthorized celebrity endorsements. Most US states have some form of this, but the details vary significantly. Unless the baby pictures were being used to advertise something, or in some commercial manner, this would not apply. If the parents sold baby pictures to someone who used them to advertise, say a day-care, or some baby product, this might apply, although it might be that the parents would be held to have had the right to act as the child's agent. If someone else downloaded the baby pictures from Facebook (or any other such site) and used them in ads, this might well apply. Conclusion It is unlikely in the US that a child could successfully take legal action against a parent for having posted pictures of the child, even if they were embarrassing, unless they were also &quot;highly offensive&quot;. Even then such a suit would be unusual, and might not be successful. It is more likely that a request to the parent would be successful, unless the parties are on vary bad terms. A request to the site to take down such images might work, depending on the site's terms. A DMCA takedown would not work, because the subject does not normally hold copyright to an image, the photographer initially does (unless it is a work made for hire, in which case the employer initially does). This conclusion is specific to US law. The outcome would be different in at least some other countries.
I don't believe Canada uses the public official/figure distinction. American defamation law uses the distinction to determine whether to require proof of actual malice, but Canada does not require proof of actual malice. Canadian defamation law has a lot of other parallels to American defamation law, though, especially in terms of privilege. I'd expect the University could claim any of several available privileges, including truth, qualified privilege, and fair comment. And because it's a government institution, it's conceivable that it might even claim absolute privilege, though I definitely don't know enough about their interpretations of the privilege to say one way or another. For a broad primer on defamation law in Ontario, you can check out this report from the Law Commission of Ontario.
The fire department is entirely within its rights, which are the same as any other property owner. The fact that property is owned by a governmental body does not mean that members of the public can't be excluded that property. Some governmental property is public, but lots of it is private, and this would usually include most parts of fire department property. As long as you have not been denied any access to a public road by this fence, there is nothing improper about it. Anyone can walk through their parking lot, park their car there, meet friends, whatever, This is almost surely inaccurate. The fire department does not have to allow members of the public to have any access to their property and probably would demand that most of the uses you describe stop if they interfered in any way with the performance of its duties.
If the operators of a site post them in such a way that anyone with a browser can access them, with no login or other security precaution required, and not even any notice that the files are confidential, they are implicitly inviting anyone to view them, and thus it is legal to do so. There was a case where a site owner gave specific notice to a user not to access the site, and blocked the user's IP. When the user hired a proxy service to get around the blockage, this was held to be unauthorized access, a crime under the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse act). But in that case the individual notice was considered essential to the applicability of the act. That case was Craigslist, Inc v. 3Taps, Inc et al, 942 F.Supp.2d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2015). See also This Wikipedia article and thisJaxEnter article. As the Wikipedia article put it: Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc., 942 F.Supp.2d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2013) was a Northern District of California Court case in which the court held that sending a cease-and-desist letter and enacting an IP address block is sufficient notice of online trespassing, which a plaintiff can use to claim a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Note that in this case web scraping was apparently impacting the craigslist site.
I haven't found a recent case like this where it constitutes evidence. Military members didn't have an express right to remain silent until somewhere in the 1950s, so one chances are there might be cases prior to that point. The present right is codified in 10 U.S.C. 831, which is Article 31 of the UCMJ. That said, there is certainly a well documented adverse inference effect. While jurors aren't supposed to take the silence into account (e.g. when a defendant elects not to testify or exercises a right against self-incrimination), it's a difficult thing to do, practically speaking.