Comment Re:Good for her! (Score 1) 143
>He has no right to film her
Wrong. She's in public. Period. This happened in the U.S..
>he has no right to film on the subway in the first place
Wrong. Unless the subway is both privately owned AND has ENFORCED no camera rules.
>He certainly has no right to use her video (which he still does, it seems).
Wrong. First amendment covers this, the only entity that can say he can't use the video is the hosting site. That's also assuming the hosting site isn't owned by some form of the government.
It is also covered under news, as she battered him, and destroyed his property, causing her to lose any protections she may have had, which were... already none.
>And he absolutely no right to monetise her.
Again, wrong. Monetization has nothing to do with anything here. News sources are also monetized, and can post video from public spaces. They don't need permission to show someone doing something if they catch something of interest in said public space.
>Unfortunately, the internet has created millions of jackasses out there broadcasting their poor behaviour.
The only poor behaviour[sic] is from the woman and your extremely poor understanding of the world around you. You cannot use violence just because you don't like something that has zero bearing on your physical well being being a minor annoyance. If the woman called him an asshole, cussed him out, and made rude gestures she would be in the right.
Destruction of property ( the glasses / camera ) and battery (physically removing something from a person without permission to touch them ) absolutely makes her in the wrong, and the police 100% should get involved.