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 ...
Hyperbolize much? Lol.
It is Baldwin and you who claim people visiting adult stores are immoral or of bad character. My references are in relationship to what Baldwin's motives are: to exploit people who visit adult stores as immoral or of bad character by taking their photos and publishing them with the implication these are immoral people?. That is his purpose, is it not? And you support this, right?
I was not responding to you.
I haven't said that. I've said a LOT of stuff but I don't remember posting that. The bulk of my posts have been that Baldwin is within his legal rights to take pictures of people in public. And that he can't be sued for it.
OOPS.. there, you finally did, in #290, but you didn't really say it, just 'yup'ped it...
Is it?
to exploit people who visit adult stores as immoral or of bad character by taking their photos and publishing them with the implication these are immoral people?.
We've been over this before. Publishing a pic of someone entering or leaving a public store is in the public doamain. You claim he is implying something. Where do you get an implication of anything? Again, a pic speaks for itself. Theres' no implication. It would be a pic of a fact. They entered the establishement.
oops, 305 was to you...
It had been posted REPEATEDLY so I finally said "Yup". LOL
Definately not true.
From the Publishing Law Center, (http://www.publaw.com/photo.html)
The basic presumption underlining right to privacy laws is the protection of an individual from the disclosure of private facts. The general principles are that one who publicizes a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability for invasion of privacy if the matter publicized is of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate concern to the public. The right of publicity provides that an individual has the right to control the commercial use of their name, likeness or identity. While the right of privacy protects an individual from the disclosure of embarrassing facts, the right of publicity protects the individual from financial loss from an unauthorized commercial use of their name or likeness. As a general rule the right of privacy will only apply to a living person while the right of publicity may also apply to a deceased person.
And here's more regarding pictures taken in a public setting:
Releases are generally not required from people who are identifiable in a photograph of a street or public place, provided that the photograph is reasonably related to the subject matter and the identifiable people are not the focus of the photograph. An example of a permitted use would be a photograph of the Rockefeller Center Ice Rink that was used to illustrate a book about Rockefeller Center or about New York City attractions, even though many people may be identifiable.
In this case the people in question would definately be the focus of the photograph.
Good for him, I can never fault anyone for standing up for what they beleive in, especially when they are the born again brother of Alex.
You're dead in the water right there. PUBLICLY entering a PUBLIC store is not a private or personal activity or fact.
Btw, there's already been a ruling on that sort of thing. I read it here on FR. There was a man who was suing an insurance company. They knew he drank so they contacted Shoprite and got his purchase records from there via his Shoprite card and proved how much beer he'd bought. That he'd bought beer at Shoprite was NOT considered a personal or private fact. Entering a public store is not a "private fact".
What message is Baldwin trying to convey to the public about people who visit adult stores? What message is conveyed by publishing photos of people entering an adult store?
This is about the morality of people who visit these places, is it not?
What do you think will happen when (and if) Baldwin publishes photos of people entering an adult store with the in a context implicating they are immoral or of bad character? Will they run and hide because of shame like you might do, or would they sue him? What do you think?
"You're dead in the water right there. PUBLICLY entering a PUBLIC store is not a private or personal activity or fact."
There you go again.
First you make the ridiculous statement that people can't sue over public photos. Now this. I guess we have no rights when we are in public, huh? You should stick with what you know, whatever that might be.
Have you ever entered a bar or liquor shop? How'd you like some moral crusader to snap your picture when you do it and put it in the local paper. Do you smoke? The best prices are ussually at the smoke shops. How'd you like someone to take your picture entering there? Most of them also sell drug paraphenalia and pornography.
Personally I'm a nonsmoking teetotaler, but I'd object to those same tactics being used at either a smoke shop or a tavern too. If my picture were taken going into a sexshop and later publicized, I'd be pretty pissed off about it since I'd view it as an invasion of my privacy, but I wouldn't be terribly ashamed by it. Anyone that knows me, including my wife, knows that I'm anything but a prude.
You can argue and try to justify all you like. If someone is ashamed at being caught at a porn shop, it's no ones fault but their's for going there.
You can't claim public actions are private.
Elmer, you are too sensible:)
Hint, read the part about photographing private individuals in public settings. If they are the subject of the photo you need a release to use their photo unless the event is newsworthy.
I'd object to those same tactics being used at either a smoke shop or a tavern too.
People would laugh about it as that behaviour isn't normally considered on par with porn.
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.