Not that anything the fundies do anymore surprises me, but seriously, should taking photos of people inside their homes and posting them on the net not reek even slightly as being a bit unethical to Tony Miano? (See the 19th photo down from the top.)
Although I would most certainly rather not be within ear shot of it, if they aren't breaking any laws, then they have the right to free speech in their open air preaching. But shooting pics of people sitting in their living rooms is not something that I would ever do. I have no idea if it is illegal or not, but that isn't really the point. Sometimes, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Personally, I think keeping your camera out of people's living rooms is one of those things that you do out of respect for other people's privacy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It looks to me that the people in the crowd had a look of "what the hell is this?"
ReplyDeleteIt's probably more specific to local statutes, but AFAIK it's not against the law to do this.
ReplyDeleteBut it's not exactly a polite thing to do, either.
As for it seeming to be obvious the woman was listening (to the open-air sermon), that doesn't rule out the possibility that she was considering calling the police regarding the public disturbance :)
She may have been listening, I don't know. That's just it. I don't know. But the arrogance and self-centeredness of believers is amazing. God created me special. God created the entire universe for me special. God listens to my prayers. A man who lived and died nearly two thousand years ago died just for me. I love that Christian humility.
ReplyDeleteThey looked more like "medical emergency going on and these people show up to spread their Godness. Jesus titty fucking christ."
ReplyDeleteThat shot of the woman in her house was "amazing" only because there was no reason to take it/post it.
By the way, do people really call other people "brother in Christ" or "sister in Christ" in normal speech?
In normal, evangelical, fundie speech, they do.
ReplyDeleteShaggy,
ReplyDeleteExactly. They had plenty of photos of people standing in public places to post without pointing a camera into someone's home.
The other thing that bothers me about this photo, as Whateverman and Rufus touched on, is that this woman could have been doing anything. There is zero evidence that she was listening to them preach. She could have been watching tv and doing her best to drown them out for all we know.
ReplyDeleteBut no, let's point a camera into someone's home, take a photo of them minding their own damn business and spin it as they were listening to us do our biblical blah blah on the street corner.
I used to do photojournalism, and here's my understanding on how the law works when it comes to photographing people in public and not in public.
ReplyDeleteI am not a lawyer, so this could all be incorrect.
Expectation of privacy is the main concept when it comes to photographing other people when you don't explicitly have their permission to do so. If you're in a public area such as a street or park, you don't really have much of an expectation of privacy since you're out in the open for everyone to view.
For example, you'll almost certainly go to jail if you take pictures of someone in a bathroom stall without their permission, obviously because that person has a solid expectation of privacy when they're doing their personal business.
Taking pictures of someone through their window in their home goes along with that same reasoning. You're in your private residence with an expectation of privacy. Therefore, it's probably illegal, and definitely unethical.
This site seems to agree with my assessment.
Thank you for that info, Nick.
ReplyDeleteI knew that photographing people in a public area was legal, but I thought there might be a little something not quite kosher about photographing people in their homes without permission.
My guess is that Tony won't care, though, because they will spin it anyway they can to make it seem like this woman was sitting in her living room listening intently to every words he was yelling.
Even though it is absolutely legal for him to do so I also have to wonder what his motives are for posting photos of people who are standing in line in front of the courthouse.
ReplyDeleteA lot of those photos show nothing of himself or any of his fellow preachers and are just pictures of random strangers. WTF?
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know Tony's motives for preaching outside a courthouse of all places?
ReplyDeleteBTW: Tony is really nice.
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDeleteOne motive for doing this in front of a courthouse would most likely be that it is an already formed crowd so they don't have to worry about drawing one and also those people had business to attend to there so it makes it harder for them to just walk away.
Also, I do not think that people who spread fundamental Christianity and yell at people on street corners, much less publish photos of people sitting in their own homes and use it to spin their ministry are 'really nice'.
Tony is real piece of work. He finds places where people can't leave and uses an amplifier to shout repetitive nonsense at them. He seems to love guns and intimidating people. He won't let people talk. He uses a script a lot so it all sounds the same when he talks to people one on one. He is incapable of listening to anyone else's point of view. If people try to get out of the script he'll just start rattling on about "the Law"
ReplyDeleteI am glad I live in a different country than him.
And he preaches at accidents. AT ACCIDENTS!
ReplyDeleteA real piece of work, that one!
(oh, i think i should point out that down in my part of Australia we use the phrase "a real piece of work" to mean "arse-hole" when we're being polite)
ReplyDeleteThis whole thread is a "real piece of work" if you ask me - which I know no one did, though I thought I might answer a question that was asked and comment on another that was made, and then I'll leave you all alone to commiserate over the thread crashing creationist...
ReplyDeleteFirst, NM, you're right, he DOES preach at courthouses because there is already a crowd gathered, another "motivation" is that the people standing in line have allegedly broken the law, at least they've been charged with breaking the law whether they have or not is between them and the judge...
And so it is with Tony's presentation (preaching). He is bringing the people face to face with God's Law because they are already prepared to face man's law, this is simply a convenient venue...
Now, as for whether or not it is right to photograph someone through their window, as NM pointed out, we have ZERO evidence that this picture was taken deliberately as an attempt to capture her image in any way that might be considered an invasion of her privacy...
I wrote it that way for two reasons... In the first place, you only have Tony's word mentioning that the photo was captured of the woman. You don't know that her image was captured in the process of photographing a bird perched on the fence next to her home. And the cropped photo of the woman was what he wanted to show us.
And the second is that you don't know that Tony, or someone from his group didn't go up to her door, knock and ask her permission to use the photo...
I was going to make a statement about you atheists jumping to conclusions again without any evidence, but I won't...
Have a great day...
Now, as for whether or not it is right to photograph someone through their window, as NM pointed out, we have ZERO evidence that this picture was taken deliberately as an attempt to capture her image in any way that might be considered an invasion of her privacy...
ReplyDeleteNo, but we do have evidence that the photo was used deliberately in a way that might be considered an invasion of her privacy: it was posted on a public blog. Whether or not it was taken deliberately is irrelevant: it was used deliberately.
In addition is Tony's wording of his comment about her: "It seems obvious that she was listening."
Had he asked her permission to use the photograph, this would be worded differently, because he would have known for certain that she was listening.
Benjamin, that is the biggest heap of bullshit I have ever seen you write and I'm going to tell you why.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, legal or not yelling at people about your religion in a place where people have come to conduct legal business and therefore in a lot of cases cannot just up and leave if they don't like it is pretty underhanded. It really says something about your message if you have to trap people into listening to it.
Secondly, your assertions about God's law are just that...assertions. You can not prove your deity, therefore you can not prove your deities law. Also, if people want to know about your religion and its laws there are tons of places where they can seek out that info for themselves.
Now to the real BS of your comment.
You said:
Now, as for whether or not it is right to photograph someone through their window, as NM pointed out, we have ZERO evidence that this picture was taken deliberately as an attempt to capture her image in any way that might be considered an invasion of her privacy...
And that is a misrepresentation of what I said. What I said was this:
"There is zero evidence that she was listening to them preach. She could have been watching tv and doing her best to drown them out for all we know."
See how those 2 things are not alike, Benny?? If not, rethink taking a course in basic reading comprehension.
You said:
I wrote it that way for two reasons... In the first place, you only have Tony's word mentioning that the photo was captured of the woman. You don't know that her image was captured in the process of photographing a bird perched on the fence next to her home. And the cropped photo of the woman was what he wanted to show us.
So are you suggesting that Tony is lying? Tony's post plainly says this:
Amanda captured this amazing photo of a lady who lives in the apartment directly behind where we preach. It seems obvious that she was listening. This just goes to show that you never know who is hearing and listening to open-air preaching.
So are you saying that Tony might be lying about why the photo was taken?
You said:
"And the second is that you don't know that Tony, or someone from his group didn't go up to her door, knock and ask her permission to use the photo..."
Ok, let me ask you this. If Tony and his crew of street screamers went up and knocked on her door and asked her permission to take the photo, why did they post it as if it were taken as a clandestine shot of a woman not knowingly having her photo taken? Is Tony purposefully trying to make himself look like a person that peers into windows?
You said:
"I was going to make a statement about you atheists jumping to conclusions again without any evidence, but I won't..."
Too late, you just did. And exactly how is anything in this post jumping to conclusions? I looked at the post and reported on what it plainly says. If Tony wanted the post to say 'Hey, we just wanted people to know that we went up and knocked on this woman's door and asked her if we could take her photo in a way that makes it look like we are peeping in on her and then asked her permission to publish it" then that's what he should have said.
That's not what it says, Benny. Not at all.
Any questions?
we have ZERO evidence that this picture was taken deliberately as an attempt to capture her image in any way that might be considered an invasion of her privacy...
ReplyDeleteIT'S A PHOTO OF SOMEONE INSIDE THEIR OWN HOME. I'm sure you think your home is a place of privacy.
I wrote it that way for two reasons... In the first place, you only have Tony's word mentioning that the photo was captured of the woman. You don't know that her image was captured in the process of photographing a bird perched on the fence next to her home. And the cropped photo of the woman was what he wanted to show us.
That sounds unlikely. They take a lot of people "listening" (more likely trying to go about their activities with some amplified guy droning on at them).
And the second is that you don't know that Tony, or someone from his group didn't go up to her door, knock and ask her permission to use the photo...
His blog is filled with photos of people. If he asks for permission it must take him all day...