Right To Privacy for a person with a disability?

[Daveintx]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? TX

I have a question and I am not sure who or where to ask so if this is not the correct forum please let me know.

I have a physical disability and have been confined to a wheelchair for 46 years of my 56 year life.

A few days ago I was in a public park and someone was taking pictures that I felt I was the subject and the reason for the pictures.

My question is: Can I claim a 'right to privacy' regarding my physical disability ?

I feel my disability is a very personal thing although it can't be hidden when in public, but I feel uncomfortable when people take pictures or videos.

I hope I have properly explained my question, but if not I will clarify.

Thanks, Dave in TX.

 

[justalayman]

If you are in the public view, you have willingly given up your claim to privacy.

 

[Daveintx]

If you are in the public view, you have willingly given up your claim to privacy.

I think there is more to it than that. I could site several reasons that make this situation stand apart from the norm, but I'll use the time to research the subject.

 

[quincy]

Could you cite a few of those reasons, Dave? I am of the same mind as justalayman on this and cannot see where you might believe your privacy has been invaded.

There are very few laws that would prohibit the taking of a photo in a public place - legal problems generally arise over the usage of the photos once taken.

Whatever the case, most photographers will not take photos if the subject requests that no photos be taken (unless there is a legitimate newsworthy reason for taking the photos). Did you ask the photographer not to take your picture because it made you uncomfortable?

 

[justalayman]

be my guest. You be sure to let me know if you find something to support your claim you deserve some special protections while you have intentionally placed yourself within the view of the general public.

 

[Daveintx]

be my guest. You be sure to let me know if you find something to support your claim you deserve some special protections while you have intentionally placed yourself within the view of the general public.

I kind of sense I ruffled the feathers of both you and Quincy, but that was not the intention of this post or my initial reply.

This is one of those situations that I feel there must be something in the past that has addressed this issue because it is certainly not a new phnom, but with today's technology is probably exaggerated.

I will do a bit of research and post my findings here.

Thanks to both of you for the pointed replies.

DaveinTX

 

[Antigone*]

I kind of sense I ruffled the feathers of both you and Quincy, but that was not the intention of this post or my initial reply.

This is one of those situations that I feel there must be something in the past that has addressed this issue because it is certainly not a new phnom, but with today's technology is probably exaggerated.

I will do a bit of research and post my findings here.

Thanks to both of you for the pointed replies.

DaveinTX

It takes way more than that to ruffle Just's feathers; and in the four+ years I've been here I've only seen quincy's feathers ruffled once (and the person doing the ruffling is a certifiable blithering idiot).

 

[xylene]

The other posters have answered the legal questions factually and correctly.

There are hundred of 'special' reasons why someone might demand privacy rights in the public space.

The wealthy, the ugly, the fat, the famous, the those who make a living by their appearance, those ashamed of their appearance.

It doesn't work that way, and it is not the law.

Don't let this make you into a shut in. Best wishes.

 

[swalsh411]

Did you come here for advice or to argue with people giving you an answer you don't like?

 

[Daveintx]

Did you come here for advice or to argue with people giving you an answer you don't like?

Thanks all very much for your replies.
DaveinTx

 

[justalayman]

It takes way more than that to ruffle Just's feathers; and in the four+ years I've been here I've only seen quincy's feathers ruffled once (and the person doing the ruffling is a certifiable blithering idiot).

HEY!!! I didn't mean to upset Quincy. I already apologized. Can't we just let it go?

as an adjunct discussion, I believe California has a law that limits photography in certain situations. I have not read anything on it but my understanding is it was meant to deal with paparazzi and and their hounding of famous (at least in their minds) people. I know of no other state that has any such protections of a persons privacy when in the public view.

I kind of sense I ruffled the feathers of both you and Quincy, but that was not the intention of this post or my initial reply.

What I took away from your response was that due to your disability you believed you deserved some special treatment. While I am sympathetic to people with disabilities, I find it bothersome that some attempt to use them to garner greater rights than those afforded the general public. While there are laws that do provide protections for the disabled in many ways, the attempt of the law is to not provide them with additional or greater rights but merely to allow them to enjoy the same rights as those not disabled.

To attempt to claim some greater right of privacy due to a disability would be putting the disabled in a position superior to that of the general public. That was never intended in the creation of the Constitution or the laws concerning the disabled.

You claiming a right of privacy such as you desire, in my opinion, would be no different than me claiming such a right because I am ugly and I don't want people to look at me or photograph me due to some physical deformation. While I will agree that our society expresses a lack of respect for others and their personal situation, especially due to the recent Supreme Court ruling IN FAVOR OF the Westboro Baptist Church, I believe we all have to simply learn that sometimes people are inconsiderate and simply have to have thicker skin when dealing with such situations.

 

[Antigone*]

HEY!!! I didn't mean to upset Quincy. I already apologized. Can't we just let it go?

as an adjunct discussion, I believe California has a law that limits photography in certain situations. I have not read anything on it but my understanding is it was meant to deal with paparazzi and and their hounding of famous (at least in their minds) people. I know of no other state that has any such protections of a persons privacy when in the public view.



What I took away from your response was that due to your disability you believed you deserved some special treatment. While I am sympathetic to people with disabilities, I find it bothersome that some attempt to use them to garner greater rights than those afforded the general public. While there are laws that do provide protections for the disabled in many ways, the attempt of the law is to not provide them with additional or greater rights but merely to allow them to enjoy the same rights as those not disabled.

To attempt to claim some greater right of privacy due to a disability would be putting the disabled in a position superior to that of the general public. That was never intended in the creation of the Constitution or the laws concerning the disabled.

You claiming a right of privacy such as you desire, in my opinion, would be no different than me claiming such a right because I am ugly and I don't want people to look at me or photograph me due to some physical deformation. While I will agree that our society expresses a lack of respect for others and their personal situation, especially due to the recent Supreme Court ruling IN FAVOR OF the Westboro Baptist Church, I believe we all have to simply learn that sometimes people are inconsiderate and simply have to have thicker skin when dealing with such situations.

Senor Justalayman... you are NOT the certifiable blithering idiot.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

My daughter had a photo journalism assignment where she HAD to take pictures out in public of various situations. The photographer could very well have NOT been doing anything to aggravate the OP - just a thought.

 

[quincy]

Geez, justalayman. I didn't realize you were certifiable.

The three invasion of privacy torts recognized in Texas (intrusion into seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, misappropriation) have elements that would not be met if a photographer was merely taking a photo of Dave sitting outside in a public place. Intrusion into seclusion generally applies when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and there has been an intruding conduct that invades this privacy (ie. surreptitious filming, trespass). The other torts all have a "publication" element.

There was a case out of Maine in the 1980s (Muratore v M/S Scotia Prince, 656 F.Supp 471, D.Me, 1987; aff'd 845 F2d 347, 1st Cir 1988) that involved the taking of photos in a public place. A woman on a cruise ship asked ship photographers not to take her photo, but they continued to do so. The photographers then displayed doctored photos of the woman and, essentially, followed her and harassed her throughout the cruise. She sued for Invasion of Privacy, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Both the NIED and the Invasion of Privacy claims were dismissed, but the photographers were found to have conducted themselves in an "extreme and outrageous" manner that "exceeded the bounds of decency" and the woman was awarded damages on her IIED claim.

There was also Daily Times Democrat v Graham, a 1964 Alabama Supreme Court invasion of privacy decision, where a newspaper published a photo taken of a woman in a public place whose skirt had blown up, revealing her underwear. It was not the photo-taking itself, however, that was a problem. It was the publication of the photo in the newspaper. The fact that the photo was not deemed "newsworthy" helped the woman win her suit against the newspaper.

There are times when a person in a public place can reasonably expect privacy (ie. at an ATM machine), and photo-taking then could potentially be seen as an invasion of privacy but, generally, if a person is in a public place, there is nothing that legally prevents a photographer from taking that person's photo (unless the photographer is violating another law when doing so).


(I think my feathers have been ruffled more than once, by the way, Antigone. . . but thank you for not noticing )

 

[Antigone*]

(I think my feathers have been ruffled more than once, by the way, Antigone. . . but thank you for not noticing )

...lol... most likely by the same blithering idiot