Author Topic: Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)  (Read 33136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hypothetical legal questions (possibly for Roy)
« on: December 18, 2009, 08:54:22 AM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17392
  • Tommy Points: 1086
So I heard on the radio today that one of Tiger's girlfriends told an aunt she took pics of him naked while he was sleeping and may release them to the tabloids. If she did, wouldn't she get in trouble for that? Isn't there a consent issue there? Doesn't Tiger own his image on some level?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 09:35:39 AM by eja117 »

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2009, 09:18:15 AM »

Offline Greenbean

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3736
  • Tommy Points: 417
I think if he wanted that picture taken and consented to it, then she can publish it. Im not really sure though. I think it has to do with whether or not the person was expecting a level of privacy at the time of the photo. In other words if the girlfriend snuck into the bathroom and snapped a picture of him in the bath, there is no way she could get away with that. If he was posing for her goating her to take pics, then yes I think she could publish them. Then again, with the lawyers Tiger could afford I'm sure there is no way she would get awwy with this!

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2009, 09:39:43 AM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3812
  • Tommy Points: 695
I think it should be illegal to publish or sell any photos like that without permission.  not sure that's the case though, as there's a weird thing about public entities being newsworthy and thus a public interest in their images...it's basically the paparazi loophole, which i'm not sure i agree with.


Mostly i come from this from the angle of teenage domestic/sexual abuse, which is rampant right now: some douchy guy convinces a girl to take a nude picture, then sends it to all her friends and everyone calls her a **** even though she sent pictures to her boyfriend and never wanted those to get distributed. It's clearcut sexual harrassment by the boy and should absolutely be illegal. Thus, in the interest of fairly applying that theory, yeah, it should absolutely be illegal to publish nude images of tiger without his consent, EVEN IF he wanted her to take them; without explicit permission there's an implicit understanding that those pictures stay between the two of them.

I think that this has been the case with celebreties banning distribution of consensual sex tapes; the sex tape was consensual but distribution is completely different.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2009, 09:49:39 AM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28120
  • Tommy Points: 5371
  • Yup ya do
I think there should be a law about us knowing a lot less about Tiger.

2017 PAPOUG CHAMPION

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2009, 10:10:40 AM »

Offline Birdbrain

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2939
  • Tommy Points: 235
  • 36 charges and counting..
If you send someone a pic of your privates you are dumber than someone who sleeps with 100 prostitutes while you are married so I'll be hoping for the worst.

Does his free fall ever hit the bottom?
Little Fockers 1.5/10
Gulliver's Travels 1/10
Grown Ups -20/10
Tron Legacy 6.5/10

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2009, 09:13:58 AM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17392
  • Tommy Points: 1086
Ok, so here's the question today

My understanding is that during the late 70s occupation of Wounded Knee by members of AIM when the federal government changed negotiators one of the first things he did was to get rid of the news reporters and tv crews and disallowed them on the scene.

Now wait a second. Don't we have freedom of the press? In the Constitution? If your country is theoretically being attacked or occupied by another foreign country or a group of terrorists don't you have a right to see that on TV if at all possible? If your country is negotiating with another group doesn't the press have a right to report on that? If your country is going to use your tax dollars to kill someone don't you have a right to see that? At that point we had seen tv reporters in Vietnam for almost a decade, but they couldn't film this?

It just strikes me a little like Tianemen Square when the Chinese sent the reporters home and rolled in at night and about 300 people were gone the next day. Not cool.

Also didn't they fly a Native American negotiator to DC to negotiate and arrest him during this? Isn't that on the unprecedented side? Sort of unusual?

How did this go down? I assume there were lawsuits filed, but I have no idea what the resolution was. Did any change occur?

I'm not trying to stir up anything here, just get some perspective.

I'm trying to imagine a similar scenario happening today and I can only think of a few possibilities

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2010, 02:49:42 PM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17392
  • Tommy Points: 1086
Hey Roy. Do you have any comments on the Kagan hearings?

Also what happens to you legally if you're lost at sea for a long time like Tom Hanks in Castaway and then get rescued? That must be a legal nightmare.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2010, 10:38:53 AM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17392
  • Tommy Points: 1086
http://gawker.com/5715821/couple-on-game-show-loses-800000-for-answering-question-correctly

hey. Does anyone know if answering a question correctly on a game show constitutes a contract?

Can a show just pronounce something wrong and not give you the money?

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2010, 11:01:40 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32447
  • Tommy Points: -28036
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Jeez, I've missed this thread for over a year, huh?

Regarding the game show stuff, I'm sure that contestants sign some sort of a contract that deals with stuff like this, but I otherwise have no idea.  I vaguely remember here in some other context where something similar happened on a game show (maybe Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?) that they invited the contestant back on for another show, but I don't know if that was a contractual remedy or otherwise.

No idea about the pic of Tiger.  It would depend upon the state law, I would imagine.  Generally, whoever takes a photograph owns the copyright to that photograph, but presumably many states make it illegal to take or sell nude photos without somebody's knowledge.

Regarding Kagan...  eh.  Those hearings are a joke, and has turned into "just don't say something stupid".  The last nominee to give candid answers was Bork, and his nomination was defeated.

No idea regarding the AIM stuff, either.  I'm sure there are court cases on it, and it's important to remember that most Constitutional rights aren't absolute.  It could be that the press "voluntarily" stayed away, or that the government was using authority under the Espionage Act.  Again, no idea.  (The reporters in Vietnam were there with the permission of the U.S. government, and could be removed at any time.)


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2010, 11:55:33 AM »

Offline stoyko

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 399
  • Tommy Points: 77
I was on Jeopardy a few years back and they have independent lawyers on hand to make sure everything is fair and on the level. If you do have an objection, they investigate the issue, and if they find any gray area invite you back to play again.
NJ Nyets.
A.Iguodala,Nene,A. Brooks, H. Warrick, ,C.Delfino,MoWilliams,Nick Collison,Reggie Williams, T. Douglas, E. Barron,Q. Ross,James Anderson, Jeff Pendergraph

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2010, 01:45:39 PM »

Offline mgent

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7397
  • Tommy Points: 1921
Once while watching Family Feud I saw them invite back a family for losing when the winner was wrong but the judges gave it to them anyway.  It was a sudden death (only one answer) and the survey was something that is transplanted.  The guy said a brain (idiot) and the board read "heart/organs".  Technically the brain is an organ, but I've always found it hilarious.
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2010, 02:22:45 PM »

Offline guava_wrench

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9878
  • Tommy Points: 777
Once while watching Family Feud I saw them invite back a family for losing when the winner was wrong but the judges gave it to them anyway.  It was a sudden death (only one answer) and the survey was something that is transplanted.  The guy said a brain (idiot) and the board read "heart/organs".  Technically the brain is an organ, but I've always found it hilarious.
I think that would actually a body transplant, not a brain transplant.

The dude must watch too many movies.

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2010, 11:48:55 AM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17392
  • Tommy Points: 1086
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usdiplomacywikileaksinternetmilitaryrights

doesn't this violate the guy's right to a speedy trial?   Or maybe military courts work different?

Also I admit I missed the part in the Constitution that said military courts can be totally different

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2010, 11:59:24 AM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11472
  • Tommy Points: 1415
  • bammokja
I think there should be a law about us knowing a lot less about Tiger.

Thank you. And have a tp.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Hypothetical legal questions (probably for Roy)
« Reply #14 on: December 24, 2010, 10:00:49 PM »

Offline eja117

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17392
  • Tommy Points: 1086
This might be a little more of a history question than a legal one, but I was under the impression that the rules of NATO state an attack on one is an attack on all.  So why didn't NATO respond to the Falklands Invasion by Argentina