- This topic has 55 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
UMy sister (F19) was on monkey ( an app like Omegle basically) and a few guys made some vulgar jokes with which she didn’t interact the problem is that those guys have uploaded it as a reel using her face as the thumbnail. We’ve contacted them but they’ve not responded and their media management team picked the call once and said we’ll talk to the creators and now they too have stopped picking up our calls . Is there a legal way we can make them take down the video.
Any advice is appreciated thanksEDIT- their insta handle if mass reporting helps
_ . jry. _ -
UConsult to any known legal consultants or simply search this is in chatgpt, it will definitely tell you what steps to take.
-
-
-
-
RIt’s not about the victim blaming it’s about realising what the reality looks like. When you take a chance on these anonymous apps you also accept what it entails.
-
-
UYeah she made a mistake it won’t happen ever again but right now making sure that they take down the video is the priority
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SPractising advocate here:
You have a legal recourse in this matter.
Firstly, send the people who recorded you as well as their management company a legal notice asking them to take down the video.
Secondly, approach the police and file a complaint against them. The grounds for the complaint would include sexual harassment, outraging the modesty of a woman and violation of her privacy by sharing her video without her consent.
Thirdly, file a cyber crime complaint against them along similar lines.
——————————————————————————————————
**Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
-
-
UThis sounds very Authoritarian. The Omegle like platform is not a private space. Ones image/video created in a public space shouldn’t be their property. No consent is required to use something which is not ones property.
-
SIncorrect. We have specific laws that protect individuals from having their videos/photos getting shared online without their consent. Just because it is a public space doesn’t mean that it is a lawless land. Rules apply there as well.
The law is a bit nuanced, but this particular instance is a violation of the same.
Whether it is authoritarian or not is an entirely different issue. I personally think it is not. Rights go hand in hand with liabilities, and under no circumstances should people like the ones in this scenario should go unpunished.
———————————————————————————————–
**Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
-
UI am not arguing whether current laws support your stance. I acknowledge that they do. I am arguing that such laws are authoritarian and unnecessary. The state should not dictate what individuals can do with recordings they create in a public space. It’s against freedom of expression.
-
SLike I said, rights come with liabilities. Freedom of expression cannot exist in a vacuum, and to an extent where the rights of others are violated.
It’s like the old adage goes: your rights end where my nose begins.
Imagine a scenario where these young men make a video where only they’re involved. Such a video shouldn’t violate any laws.
But if such recordings involve other individuals, who also have rights, which is the case here, then the law should drop on them like a proverbial ton of bricks.
An example of such a law being used in an authoritarian manner would be this Ranveer Allahabadia issue. But to equate that scenario with this is a stretch and a half.
—————————————————————————————-
**Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
-
-
USo suppose somebody records a female committing murder on their camera, and upload that video, that won’t be considered as evidence to convict, because it was recorded without consent of the female? Or the person recording it will be booked under sex crimes?
-
SNo, you’re wrong. Crimes have two parts, the act and the intention.
In the scenario that you’re mentioning, the intention is not to violate the privacy or the modesty of the offending woman. It is to report a crime/provide evidence, et al.
Consent is taken into account where privay laws are violated. Not where a surveillance footage is used to document a crime.
The parallel you’re drawing is untenable because the scenarios in question are wildly different.
——————————————————————————
**Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
-
-
-
UThe issue here is not whether the law exists but whether it should. I’m asking what specific right has been violated here?
There is no theft, as no property has been taken. There is no fraud, as no deception occurred. There is no physical harm, coercion, or contract violation. The only claim is that someone feels violated because their image was used without consent. But **discomfort is not a rights violation.**
If a person willingly engages in a conversation on a public platform, they do so knowing they can be seen and heard. Their participation is **voluntary**. They may dislike being recorded, but disliking something does not make it a crime. **Criminal liability should require actual harm, not just an unwanted outcome.**
I see this is an imposition of control over how others use legally obtained information. That is the authoritarian element I object to. The state should not be in the business of enforcing personal preferences under the guise of protecting rights.
-
SRead about the right to privacy. Check against whom that is enforceable. You’ll have your answers.
It is evident that you don’t know the first thing about Article 21 or Puttaswamy or the enforcement of the same against private individuals and I am not interested in educating you any further.
-
UThe person has clearly stated that **he’s not arguing whether such law exists but whether it should**.
Article 21 doesn’t apply here because the recording is not the party’s private property. I’m well aware of K.S Puttaswamy’s case. But that doesn’t apply here. Because the aggrieved party was in a public platform and the recording of her, there, is not a private property of her. Therefore the privacy is not violated. I don’t see any jeopardising of personal liberty.
-
-
-
-
-
SIt’s the legislature that makes laws and the police that enforces them. Put down the weed and read a book maybe.
-
UHe’s attacking your personal opinion, you dumbo. It is just someone who didn’t like the outcome of their voluntary participation in a public conversation. Sorry, but personal discomfort is not a rights violation. If someone crying ‘I feel bad’ is enough to justify government intervention, then you’ve just endorsed a full-blown effin authoritarian nanny state.
But hey, if you love bootlicking so much, why stop here? Maybe advocate for making mean tweets illegal next? Criminalizing awkward eye contact?
-
SSo, you’re just making another pointless comment about this issue without having an iota of understanding what the issue revolves around.
If you don’t like how it works, go cry to your local representative instead of throwing a hissy fit here like an autistic child. But I know you won’t do that because you don’t have even the basic level of understanding how to do something like that 😂😂.
So, rota reh. I don’t give a fuck.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
UDon’t remember their name,once saw their reel and they were abusing girl over her looks i was so enraged and reported reel,
I think op knows their account name -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ulook we are here to support you and not them, if we mass report and comment on their videos they might take it down before the legal procedures make the do (which may take time)
-
-
-
-
UPaise deke ek baar ban karwade account fir bluff karna ke “post nahi hati to account gayab karwa denge” just act .
-
-
-
UEven if this is not completely illegal, I urge everyone to help this sister out there by reporting the post.
We should not promote/justify harassment of any sort. This can ruin someone’s life, we need to stop report these vulgar creepy goons. Why the fuck are they even famous. Our nation is evolving backwards? -
-
-
