[[Even over-privileged kids are entitled to privacy,]]
[[No means no.]]
Not when it comes to being in public- there is no ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ when someone is in public when it comes to photography- photographers have the right to photograph anyone they choose when they are in public- famous or not- street photographers have had many cases in court and the courts have always upheld that ‘right’ (With certain restrictions like ‘model release’ IF the photo will be used for advertising profits)
As much as it might suck- a photographer can follow you or i or anyone hey like around taking photos of us all day long if they like- and given the fact that malia is infact more ‘famous’ than most- she needs to accept this just like we all have to accept it
She can not take the woman to court and win- the courts will be on the woman’s side- Malia is an adult now- correct? but even if she isn’t- the law is still on the side of the photographers- which is a good thing as photographers have the power to keep people or groups etc honest (think about corrupt cops abusing a victim- or antifa assaulting others- photographers are allowed to gather proof)
The law is on the side of the photographer, but manners are on the side of the daughter of the former occupant of our White House. A decent person would have allowed her some privacy, regardless of whether human decency is required by law.
Perhaps Malia needs to accept the fact that some photographers are rude, but that doesn’t change the fact that the conduct was rude.