Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
