It's times like these that I wish I'd gone to law school instead of learning about computers.
See, I saw this story on my local news channel the other night, and it's kind of stuck in my brain. Apparently, if someone goes out in public and does something egregiously stupid and/or obnoxious (for example, taking up two spaces in the parking lot of a busy public complex) . . . and I decide to take a picture of that stupid/obnoxious act with my cell phone so I can publish it on my blog later with commentary, then I'm somehow "violating" that person's privacy.
Never mind that I didn't even take a picture of that person. I don't even know who that person is, so it's not like I said, "Brad Kelly of 1234 Main Street is so stupid he can't even park between two lines." The mere act of publishing a picture of a double-parked car with the license plate unobscured is apparently considered a violation of privacy.
Here's the part I don't get. The Supreme Court has refused to enforce the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) on more than one occasion due to a concern that it would have an "chilling impact on free speech." In other words, protecting the First Amendment is more important than keeping minors from viewing or being depicted in online pornography-- but, at the same time, this ill-defined expectation of "having personal privacy when out in public" trumps a blogger's First Amendment rights?
Does anyone else consider that to be a peculiar double standard?