[ncallaway]

While technically true, this doctrine came from a time when cameras were far less common than they are today (by orders of magnitude), and when facial recognition software didn't even exist as a concept (outside of science fiction).

Given those two very significant changes, it's probably worth re-evaluating the doctrine itself.

[tossimba]

snip

[ncallaway]

> You want to re-evaluate the first amendment?

I don't.

> You don't want freedom of press?

I do.

> Let me guess. You also want to abolish the second amendment.

I don't.

> Why don't you just move to somewhere they don't have those rights. Like in south america. They don't have guns, free speech, anything like that. Like brazil, venezuela, or ecuador.

It's almost like you deliberately chose the least charitable interpretation of my point to avoid rebutting the actual argument I was making.

Here's an example of a doctrine that likely wouldn't run afoul of the first amendment (impinging on neither freedom of speech, the press, or religion). These also likely wouldn't impinge on the second amendment, nor steer us towards economic disaster:

* You can record in a public place

* You cannot use facial recognition software on the recording without the consent of those that were recorded

* Provide some limited exceptions to the above for small-scale private purposes or academic research

[maxxxxx]

What an extreme comment. We need to reevaluate the concept of privacy. What does that have to do with freedom of press, guns or Venezuela?