PEEPIN' STEPHEN: Stephen Baldwin, a born-again Christian, plans to snap photos of license plates of people going into a Nyack store once it's a sex shop, then publicize their names. Photo: Djamilla Rosa/WireImage.com
Posted on 01/18/2006 8:08:47 AM PST by Liz
PEEPIN' STEPHEN: Stephen Baldwin, a born-again Christian, plans to snap photos of license plates of people going into a Nyack store once it's a sex shop, then publicize their names. Photo: Djamilla Rosa/WireImage.com
Actor Stephen Baldwin has his shorts in a bunch over a sex shop opening near his estate in Rockland County.....
The least-known of the Baldwins, Stephen, a born-again Christian, parked himself outside the Route 59 location in Nyack and took snapshots of construction workers walking in and out of the building.
Once the smut shop opens in a few months, the 39-year-old star of "The Usual Suspects" plans to photograph patrons' license plates and run their names in the local newspaper to shame them from ever returning.
His beef is that the store is within a quarter-mile of the community's residential area. "This is a thoroughfare that I drive by many, many times as do college kids, mothers with their children," Baldwin said.
He said he and other residents protested at Nyack planning-board meetings and asked the owner, Quintus Algama of Hollis, Queens, to choose a more distant location, but he wouldn't listen.
In addition to selling sex toys and porn, the shop will also feature video booths where patrons can watch hardcore flicks in total privacy.
"These guys want to do this business, God bless 'em. That's between them and God. They'll have to deal with that for eternity. But the people of Nyack do not want this location where it is," Baldwin said.
Baldwin said he's already enlisted the help of dozens of students of nearby Nyack College who'll be at the store the day it opens to protest.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
You just don't get it do you. It's legal to publish pics of people entering a store. He doesn't have to SAY anything.
You keep mentioning "immoral" and "bad character". So you know it is. He doesn't have to and won't say that. JUST show them entering or leaving the "store". People will make their own moral judgements and it's LEGAL.
Porn threads and creation-evolution threads are the two types of threads where you wonder if you've accidentally been hijacked onto MoveOn or Daily Kos with such vitriol directed against anti-porn and Intelligent Design posters.
I haven't equated a porn shop with your weight loss clinic. That's a reach. Your willingness to let others exploit your personal life without responsibility, or without your permission,is unusual at the least. Would you mind emailing me your photo so I can post it on my website www.OverweightPosters.com ? I know you'll have a good laugh and won't sue me.
I couldn't care less what Stephen's religious persuasion is...but he really looks downright creepy, even for a Baldwin.
Of course you did. You thought it would make a good example because in your mind a weight loss clinic was something to be ashamed of.
Would you mind emailing me your photo so I can post it on my website www.OverweightPosters.com ?
You have trouble understanding the issues. No porn frequenter is going to volunteer for publicity because sex addiction is shameful. That's the whole point.
Besides, I'm not overweight.
On a public sidewalk,entering a "public" store, what's personal? Your "personal" life ends and public begins when you cross your threshold to leave your house.
Don't attempt law school.
"JUST show them entering or leaving the "store". People will make their own moral judgements and it's LEGAL."
Where are these photos to be published? In what context? It would not illegal to do this. It would be however, subject to civil law and would no doubt be actionable.
Your right the other poster is equating an activity where you are trying to improve yourself with one where you are degrading yourself; twisted logic..... probably a troll....
It is not. When you are in public, you are in a "public domain". That does not equate to being in your own home.
Or addicted to porn. The internet has contributed to that.
Maybe you and Dershowitz or maybe Geragos could get together to take action against Baldwin.
Sounds like just the kind of case they like.
Of course you are not overweight. Everyone knows that. But exploiting your photo standing in front of your weight loss clinic, without your permission, might imply to others that you are chubby, (when we know you are not). And of course, as you have indicated, you are OK with someone doing this and would laugh it off. Right?
If all else fails,there's always the black muslim method.Just waltz in the place with a couple of goons swinging ballbats and start busting up the joint.
Sex with Jim Nabors????????
For Heaven's sake, I have been accused of much worse!
Now, if you are talking about some kind of immoral conduct that is a different story. I would be ashamed and justified in being so.
So, you wouldn't mind your name being published in the paper for shopping in a porn shop?
I don't have an issue with Baldwin objecting to adult stores or his picketing. And I have no reason to take legal action against him. However, if he took a photo of me entering an adult store and published it in any context that I was doing something immoral or of bad character, I would sue him. And so would you. He can take all the pictures he wants but he crosses the line when he publishes photos of people with the implication they are immoral or of bad character.
Even though you may think you know me from an Internet discussion this shows that you do not. This is absolutely false. If caught in this hypothetical situation I would not want to raise my profile futher by suing.
However, it's more than possible the photo would give me enough of a jolt to make me stop visiting junk establishments.
If you are on a public sidewalk entering a store, you are in the public domain. He doesn't have to say anything just publish the pic. The photo is self explanatory and eloquent. No explanation needed. If you're beating someone on the sidewalk and your pic is taken in the act, you can't file a civil suit. You were in public. At Christmas, newspapers print pics of shoppers. They can't sue because they are in public.
I think any context would probably imply this. Even a blank sheet of white paper with no words on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.