>>3387585>Some people just dont want to have their photograph taken without their consent.That's fine. They can want, or wish, or hope for anything really.
There are people in public that don't want their photo taken. And there are photographers that want to photograph those people. Each group wants their wishes fulfilled, otherwise they feel they're not in control.
This is a conflict of "wants", and in such conflicts the law has the final say:
Unambiguously, definitively, you're allowed to capture in photographs (or canvas or pen and paper or music) what your eyes can see, when in a public space. There's nothing more to it, it's clear and absolute.
>This "in public space you have no privacy" argument. Give me a reason why this should be valid.It is valid because the law explicitly made it valid.
If you want a moral motivation why the law made it valid, is because a public space is a public domain. You can't restrict someone from looking into the streets, that's a gross violation of his rights. And once he gazed at the streets, you can't restrict his freedom of speech, about the events he witnessed. He can can exercise his freedom of speech through a poem, a novel, an article, a song, an oil painting, or a photo.
To argue that there should be an expectation of privacy in public spaces, is to argue there should be a restriction of freedom of speech in public spaces. "Don't take my photo cause I don't want you to" = "Shut up because I don't like what you're saying".
>Not everything we do we want to be documented by others, eg. in photographs. We dont just magically become perfect when we leave the stacked stones we call house.That's ok. But you can't censor others because you have body image issues.
Maybe I'm a politician and I'm not perfect, I fuck up. I don't want others to see my fuckup. But I can't censor the media cause they're capturing my fuckups.
In a society, conflicts of interest are solved by applying the law. The law is clear in this case.
