If he is being harassed she can call the police. If they refuse to let her be she can warn and mace them. I find it interesting how you define jounalism vs. harrasement.

In CA we have something called a paparazzi law. Part of it’s text is as follows.

Arnold Schwarnegger has signed an anti-paparazzi bill into law in California. It amends the Civil Code in order to provide for, among other things,

“physically invad[ing] the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical
impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person…”; “…constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used…”

It’s pretty obvious what O’Reilly does, there’s no need to defend him.

But take away the fact that she was dead when Bill O’ criticized her for being the victim of a crime—–do you think a rape victim would not be offended by a national tv show implying that she was to blame because she had been drinking and was walking (she did not know the car would be towed away)?

I am sorry I ever responded to you. Check in to the nearest psychiatric facility.

Go back to the post where you made a complete jackass of yourself.

Er…that doesn’t narrow the search down much….

Once I was traveling in Europe and remembered advice I was given to put my wallet in my front pocket. Getting on a subway in Prague I had a small backpack on and a map in my hand. I looked like a tourist. As I felt the crush of people getting on I also felt something in my pocket. I turned as quick as I could and there on the floor was my wallet and no clue as to who did it. No one gave any look as to what just happened. I was lucky but that didn’t stop me from traveling. Shit happens and you try to protect yourself from shit.

thanks livelong. i’m not trying to fearmonger and i think the advice to put your wallet in your front pocket is good advice even if it didn’t work in your case… it’s sorta like those rare instances when wearing a seat belt actually makes an accident worse rather than better and yet it’s still a good idea to wear a seat belt. i think i take your point, you seem to be saying that you can be as careful as you want and there’s still a random chance of falling into an unfortunate circumstance, as the women in this story seem to have done. i totally get that, totally agree and feel that the women in this case are wholly blameless for what happened to them. they took common-sense precautions to protect themselves and yet were the victims of crime nevertheless.

what i’m trying to drive at is something different, it’s about a phenomenon in the current political environment. i feel that consciousness of dress should be among these common-sense precautions, and the reason it currently isn’t is largely because of the idea that rape is exclusively about power and not also about sex. I mean, have we not heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle? I see no reason to think that rape can’t be both about power AND about an, albeit twisted and perverse, brand of sexual impulse i think the argument that dress IS a component in the criminal’s mind is too often used to blame the victim and that’s reprehensible and the “Rape is about power” idea was first put forward in a well-intentioned way to counter that. but the response has swung too far the other way to argue that dress cannot even be *mentioned* in this context or else you’re making the point that “they’re asking for it.”

it reminds me of another touchy subject: whether minority neighborhoods tend statistically to have less wealth and more crime. i think the facts are pretty clear on this but one side says, rightly, that this is reason to examine socioeconomic problems in our country, and the other side says, wrongly, that this is true because minorities lack character, have succumbed to entitlement culture, or what have you — they basically come up with a masked racist argument.

I think the left typically takes a reasonable position on this but what if they said, “we can’t even *discuss* whether minority neighborhoods are poorer or have higher crime rates or else we’re automatically making the argument the right wing makes?” I think that’s basically what’s going on here, I think it’s reactionary and unsound and I think it might be doing more harm than good.

Sorry, but any compassionate human being with an IQ out of room temperature range (that would leave you out) would be outraged to hear anyone blame the victim when the victim was raped and murdered.

That brings up an interesting question. Is it legal for them to use a person’s image if the person does not consent to the use? I was part of a crowd of people who were interviewed once for a documentary. We all had to sign a release to give them permission to use our images. Does that not apply to stalker interviews?