[sph]

> Devil's advocate, but isn't the point of being nude in public that you are destigmatizing it?

Destigmatizing doesn't mean people are free to stare or film you. It's the same if someone were filming on a regular beach because they find people's bodies in bikinis attractive (or to have a wank, as admitted by that old creep). You probably wouldn't like that very much.

[daenz]

Assuming we're talking about the US, if you are in public, people absolutely are free to stare or film you.

[sph]

I assume they're also free to film in a nudist beach, or are there special laws?

Still, free or not, I can approach the guy with the camera and complain, like OP did with the nudist beach creep.

I'm in Europe, not sure how this works to be honest.

[daenz]

In the US, basically any public place (nude beaches included) is open for people to film. I believe there are some exceptions like public restrooms, where there exists a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

But yes, people are also free to complain to the person and make them feel uncomfortable for the scumbag behavior.

[LoveMortuus]

In Europe (Slovenia) you can't film people without their consent even if in public, unless if there's a huge number of people. Thus you're filming the crowd and not just a select few.

[ghaff]

And I'm pretty sure that even in European counties that theoretically require consent for publishing identifiable pictures of people in public, many thousands of such photos are posted every day.

[phaer]

Same in Austria, and I believe, in the whole EU.

[nibbleshifter]

Not the whole EU, just the sensible parts.

[b3morales]

There's the law and then there is etiquette. They do not necessarily match up. In this case the law is a lower limit, and you may face social counter-action: a person standing to block your camera, angry words, etc.

[lrvick]

There are indeed plenty of legal ways to be an asshole.

[LinuxBender]

Not to mention a drone operator can be pretty far away from a drone nowadays and the stability/video quality is increasing with every passing year.

[throwawaylinux]

No, but people being free to stare at whatever they like in public means that they are free to stare at you.

[afiori]

Just because there is physical distance it does not mean it is not harassment.

[throwawaylinux]

And just because something upsets you doesn't mean it's against the law.

[kelseyfrog]

And just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. They're orthogonal dimensions. What's your point?

[throwawaylinux]

That it's not illegal.

That's the thing about going about in public, you have accept that others will be there and tolerate what they do even if you don't like it.

Try go acting the clown in public and see if people won't stare and record you.

[kelseyfrog]

Sorry, but I'm not following. How do you make the connection from going out in public to you have to accept what others do? It feels like you're bringing in NAP or something without actually saying it.

[afiori]

We can make a very long chain saying vaguely related truism forth and back.

Or I could recommend reading https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap... instead.

[throwawaylinux]

It's not a truism that people are not free to cast their eyes in any direction they like in public.

[afiori]

This is exactly why I posted that link.

I never said anything about what people can or cannot do in public or in private, I only pointed out that "just looking" is not an ironclad defense.

Harassment is better defined in terms of both side intent, personal effects, and reasonable expectations, especially when anonymity and safety can be at risk.