Invasion of Privacy
As it turns out, Mr Family posting peoples lisecnse plates online is an Invasion of privacy. This in turn could cost him a law suit.
n. the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded. However, public personages are not protected in most situations, since they have placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities (even personal and sometimes intimate) are considered newsworthy, i.e. of legitimate public interest. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from: a) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage. Lawsuits have arisen from magazine articles on obscure geniuses, use of a wife's name on a hospital insurance form to obtain insurance payment for delivery of a mistress's baby, unauthorized use of a girl's photo to advertise a photographer, and "tabloid" journalism treatment of people as freaks. There are also numerous instances of governmental invasion of privacy such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation compiling files on people considered as political opponents, partially corrected by the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966. The right to privacy originated with an article in the Harvard Law Review in the 1890s written by lawyers "Bull" Warren and future Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.
n. the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause, which can give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to bring a lawsuit for damages against the person or entity that intruded. However, public personages are not protected in most situations, since they have placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities (even personal and sometimes intimate) are considered newsworthy, i.e. of legitimate public interest. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from: a) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage. Lawsuits have arisen from magazine articles on obscure geniuses, use of a wife's name on a hospital insurance form to obtain insurance payment for delivery of a mistress's baby, unauthorized use of a girl's photo to advertise a photographer, and "tabloid" journalism treatment of people as freaks. There are also numerous instances of governmental invasion of privacy such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation compiling files on people considered as political opponents, partially corrected by the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966. The right to privacy originated with an article in the Harvard Law Review in the 1890s written by lawyers "Bull" Warren and future Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis.

10 Comments:
1. I usually don't post your comments because you're trying to use my website as a tool to promote yours.
2. There is no invasion of privacy. According to my lawyer, and the lawyers interviewed by WBRE and the Citizen's Voice, it is 100% legal to take photos while out in public and post them online.
3. The only reason this is a problem for you and for Gentlemen's Club 10 is because deep down you're ashamed of your bahavior.
4. I appreciate your attempt to copy me with your website. I'm hoping that at some point you will begin to understand why sexually oriented businesses are not good for our community.
5. You strike me as someone who is still young. Begin building a good life, full of faith and solid ethics. You won't regret it.
6. Take care, bro.
I am not as young as you would think. I have a very good set of ethics, I am not trying to copy you, What I am trying to do is also educate people. As I said in other post, many only choose to display the negative side of the Sex industry.
I am not against you per say. But I do believe people have the right to this type of entertainment.
As for faith. No. I don't follow a religion. I believe in the faith of the people around me. Friends, and Family. Not religion.
I lead a good life, with a great job. I have no regrets in my life. Nor am I ashamed when I go to the club. I have nothing to be ashamed of.
Mr. Family, of course YOUR lawyer said it was leagal, EVERYONES laywer tells them what ever they are doing is legal. They find ways to bend the laws or get around them. Choice is right, he has the right to be heard just as you do.
But you have a pic of my car, and I dont care. Do it again. And th ony reason I went to Gcub, was after hearing about Mr Family's crap on the radio, I went to see what was going on , and I had a good time, and I will go Back. GO Mr. Choice!!!
You seem to have struck a nerve Mr. Choice. You have some very good points on your site. And I remember a few years ago some one was posting names of people who used adult web sites frequently. That guy got sued. Maybe Mr. Faimly got a little worried?
It boils down to Mr. Family has no concern for the people of the valley. only him and his selfriches friends. The few he has.
Yes, it has already been shown that Mr. Family doesn't value others opinions if they do not match his own.
Mr Family says in Point #2 "There is no invasion of privacy." and "it is 100% legal to take photos... and post them on line." While he may be correct that it is legal, he is wrong about it not being an invasion of privacy. It definitely IS an invasion of privacy. It is only legal because technology is outpacing the lawmakers ability to regulate it. The right to privacy has become more and more of an issue in our computer/internet age. It has even been suggested that the right to privacy needs to be spelled out in an amendment to our Bill of Rights! Also I wish Mr. Family would quit saying that the only reason I am upset is that deep down I am ashamed of my behaviour. I don't even go to strip clubs, but I support the right of others to do so. I wouldn't want my license plate picture posted online if I was at the local Library! And no I'm not a criminal either. I just believe that a person has a right to go places and do things without his whereabouts being posted on the internet.
Very well put. Thank you!
Also remember, if some one gets a picture of Mr. Family, while he is out taking photos of the Club, or ANY one taking photos of the club, Send them here and I wil post their picture.
So, If I sit at Mundy street and see any bible banger with a camara taking shots Ill remember to bust out my camara phone!
Post a Comment
<< Home