What do you mean "discretely?" Do you make sure you're covered while in public?
@MrShaun My apologies that should of course read... Discreetly.
Of course, but does that mean you cover up in public while breastfeeding?
Perhaps you would be good enough to reread my opening comment.
"I'm breastfeeding at this present time, however I tend to do it very discretely, now if I was photographed I would be extremely annoyed and would have to say something to the pathetic lowlife."So you'd rather not say? I appreciate the fact that you breastfeed. I think that's great. But why do so without covering up if you don't wish to be recorded?
For Christ's sake you're supposed to be 54 years of age, what part of "however I tend to do it very discretely" don't you understand?
Sincerely, and I do mean this with a great deal of respect, the fact you do not wish to say whether you cover up or not. "Discretely" just as likely means you don't announce what you are doing. However, uncovering in public for the purpose of breastfeeding does mean you're also allowing others to view or record said actions.
EmmaMary please just tell us what you mean by discretely
@MrShaun I totally and utterly give up with you... Goobye.
@pigoat I believe she's feeling cornered and I don't want that to be the case. I respect any breastfeeding mother. It's good she's doing so.By answering the question, I don't want her to believe she is "giving in." She is not and I don't believe this discussion will change her position. I respect her position, even though there may be some hesitation to clarify.Hopefully those who chose to breastfeed openly in public, whether they think they're being discrete or not, should be aware they are also opening themselves up to being recorded.
"Utterly" -- whether you know it or not, that's funny!!
Thank you for the A1 BC.
If doing "that" becomes "weird and creepy" to record, why do "that" in public view at all?
Well their child is hungry and they're not on formula yet, you're not just goanna let ur child starve. That would be complete blasphemy. Besides they are entitled to some form of pice of mine just as anyone else since I don't think you would want to be filled doing some of that level.
Good comeback venus
No question that the child deserves to feed, but doesn't need to do so in public view. Maybe the better "pice of mine" (sic) might come by covering up while feeding. It's what I would do to help ensure I wasn't being "filled" (sic).
I appreciate the input. I believe there are still paparazzi in areas of Europe or am I incorrect?Are you suggesting that while recording photos, let alone video, you'd have to somehow be expected to get approval from anyone that shows up in frame?
i think if you're taking fotos just for your private use, that's a grey area. but as soon as you post shit on insta or whatever, if you're for example a street fotographer, you have to have a model release or else the person in the picture can sue you.one exception is when you take photos of a mass of people or a building and some people happen to be in front. then you don't need consent of every single person. but as soon as one person is the focus of your foto, you need written consent.for celebrities, i could imagine there's a different situation, cause they're public figures. i'm not sure how it works legally tho.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I appreciate the opinion.With respect, if it is so "disgusting and extremely wrong" to record, why is it being done in public at all?
14 with a newborn; I'm sure that's a story in itself.It's good you own your actions. Were you feeding without covering? Did anyone ever try to record you?
Recording a 14 yr old in scenario THAT would be illegalMaybe
@pigoat "THAT would be illegal... Maybe." LOL.If it wouldn't be considered illegal to expose oneself for the purpose of breastfeeding, it would also follow that successfully prosecuting one for recording the same would be highly unlikely.Now the fact that a 14 year old has found herself with child, THAT would be illegal... maybe.In all but one state, one has to be older than 14 to marry even with parental consent. Care to guess at what state that is? Massachusetts still uses the English common law age of 14 to allow the marriage of 14 year old girl, but only with parental consent.
With respect, what would that intent be?
I'm sure it could be a number of things. No doubt you can think of a reason why someone might not want to have pictures taken of them?
If one was to do so in public and not cover the assumption should be she was perfectly fine in being recorded.
I don't know why you'd think that. Leaving my home doesn't mean I'd be okay with being recorded. I don't want that. What would those two things even have to do with one another?
Any time we do something in public view we accept the possibility of being recorded. With everyone walking around with a video recorder and camera on a phone, would it be any stretch of the imagination that a woman exposing her breast (s) would be recorded?So... any woman exposing her breast (s), regardless of the reason, should hopefully be wise enough to know the possibility, if not likelihood, of being recorded. Because the photographer owns the recording, he/she is able to share it with others, either privately or publicly.You believe in an "assumed intent." The question then stands, what do you believe that is?
"Any time we do something in public view we accept the possibility of being recorded."- Sure. And every time I do, I hope that people have the courtesy and decency to respect that I don't want to be recorded."With everyone walking around with a video recorder and camera on a phone, would it be any stretch of the imagination that a woman exposing her breast (s) would be recorded?"- No. Doesn't mean she can't be opposed to it.So... any woman exposing her breast (s), regardless of the reason, should hopefully be wise enough to know the possibility, if not likelihood, of being recorded.- Sure. Still doesn't mean that she couldn't or wouldn't be opposed to it."Because the photographer owns the recording, he/she is able to share it with others, either privately or publicly."- Sure. "You believe in an "assumed intent." The question then stands, what do you believe that is?"- Doesn't matter what the specific intent is. What matters is that the intent is potentially something that the person being recorded wouldn't like. It doesn't matter what it is. What matters is that it's enough to make them not want to be recorded, and if you are any kind of decent human being, you'd respect that person's privacy. A person's privacy isn't forfeited just because they step outside. You can just choose to ignore it and record them anyway, like an asshole.Just because you -can- do something, doesn't mean that you -should-, and it doesn't mean that people would be okay with it. It can't possibly be that hard to grasp how somebody could be offended.
Sincerely appreciate the response.I don't know that I agree with the name - calling. I've always found that doing so belittles an otherwise educated response.I believe where we disagree is that of expectations. You believe that one exposing herself in public should expect privacy. I'd suggest just the opposite. No person would be so naive to believe such action would not be recorded.To your initial response, it sounds as if you'd agree that there really is no way of assuming intent. No question that the video or photo (s) might just become shared between friends but may also become posted on any number of media websites.
"I don't know that I agree with the name - calling. I've always found that doing so belittles an otherwise educated response." Sure. Well I was struggling to find the words.But no I disagree. I can't know your intent for certain, but I can guess as to what your intent might be. And if someone that I don't know wants to record me without asking if it's okay, I think it's safe to assume that I wouldn't like whatever reason they have for recording me, and I'm pretty sure most would agree with me.Now, you said I believe that one should expect privacy. I don't. I hope for privacy. I hope for human decency and courtesy. I expect that there's a low chance that someone don't have those qualities, and might record me, and a high chance that someone does have those qualities, or at least won't record me.Moreover, knowing that most would agree that it's safe to assume that a person wouldn't like being recorded without first giving the go-ahead - as I believe that to be common knowledge - I can expect that there's a good chance they won't like it if I record them, and that they would be offended if I do.
Hoping but not expecting, huh?I might have hoped, but not expected to win the lottery. Hopefully I'd still be smart enough to get employment and work towards a retirement. I might hope but not expected divine intervention to all my health concerns. Hopefully I'd still be smart enough to see a doctor for regular checkups. I suppose one who exposes her breast (s) in might hope but not expect to be recorded. Hopefully she'd just be smart enough to cover up. "I can't know your intent for certain, but I can guess as to what your intent might be." Okay, so then what would that "guess" be?
Look, I'm not about to list every single thing that that could be. I've explained twice why the specific thing is irrelevant, and is not what matters. That oughta be enough.
As I read your response, it's pretty clear that you've stated, "... because of THE assumed intent..." NOT many; NOT could be; but THE assumed intent. And if it wasn't relative, there wouldn't have been a reason for YOU to have brought it up.
Yes, THE intent, whatever intent it is that the recorded person wouldn't like. The intent itself isn't as important as the fact that the person being recorded doesn't like that intent, which is why I brought it up.I'm tired of discussing this. I've said my piece. You can either choose to be considerate, or you can choose to be an asshole. If you choose to be an asshole, people will get offended. I think I've explained how and why well enough, and I don't think you've given me an argument that disproves that.
Still "struggling to find words" huh.It's unfortunate because, at times, you were making some otherwise good points. I'm sure you'd find some agreeing with you and many others that may not have. But as soon as one starts resorting to vulgarities and name-calling, it's nothing more than conceding. It's like you've indicated; you end up lacking the vocabulary to make an otherwise acceptable argument.
If it's suppose to be "private" why do so in public view?
Because she’s allowed to. Checking her out is ok, but taking pics isn’t.
With respect, are you suggesting that she is "allowed" to openly breastfeed in public but one is "not allowed" to record the same?I believe you'd be incorrect. There is no expectation of privacy if it's being done in public view, therefore recording it would be just as "allowed." Please correct me if there's some law I'm not aware of.
I disagree., You have no right doing that.
Just because one may "disagree" with an action does not make it illegal. There are no such laws within the United States which make such recording illegal.Per the ACLU website..."Taking photographs and video of things that are visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes..."I believe they're addressing the current trend of recording law enforcement, but it does not limit the subject matter. If one choses to openly breastfeed in public, it can be recorded. Furthermore, the recording becomes the property of the photographer, so it can be used in any way he/she may see fit. Like it or not, this is also why the paparazzi is protected to record what they do.
Oh please, you’re just a perv trying to justify his actions.
With honest respect, why would you decline to name-calling in, what should be, a very reasonable and educated discussion?Even if you were to try and label such photography as "perv"y, I've never suggested it was myself or anyone I may know doing such work. I only asked why there are those who become offended by being recorded doing something so publicly. You have suggested one does not have a "right" to do so. So I would ask again, can you reference any state or federal law which prohibits such recording?If there are no such laws on the books, would it not be better to just accept that fact? You can say you don't like that one can be recorded breastfeeding in public, but others most certainly have the "right" to record any such actions performed within public view.
Are you referring to breastfeeding in public or recording the incident?
I appreciate the reply. So if snapping photos is something one would not want to happen, why wouldn't one cover herself while feeding?
Looking is fine, if she wouldn't like people watching then she would cover up. Staring for a long time is creepy and taking photos is extremely creepy..
Again, my appreciation for the reply. I really do appreciate it. I also like your explication. Knowing that she couldn't control people "looking for long periods of time" let alone recording the incident, wouldn't it make sense one would cover one's self?
Yes if she wants to avoid all that she should cover