It was interesting and helpful for referring to her when a woman gave her blog handle in an earlier demonstration.
Maybe demonstrators should wear a little hat of sorts with their preferred “name” on it so we could be better observers in the future.
I can think of several more civil and objective ways to describe her Shrieking girl is about as negative as you can get: I haven’t seen anyone at Yale use it. This thread has been both more civil and more thoughtful than the discussion going on in most of the media; just saying that I think we can do better.
Also, unlike a frat or a bus, residential colleges are mentioned in Yale’s media policy as protected areas. The yard is locked by the same key card that locks the doors to the residences. Ethically, I’d say that makes it part of that private space and covered by the policy, though I know I might not win my case in court.
As I’ve mentioned on this thread and on the thread pertaining to that fraternity incident on the bus, one doesn’t actually have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a hired chartered bus or cars/taxis. While a customer/group hires out the bus…the bus/car company/driver retains ownership of those vehicles and the spaces contained within can and do reserve the legal right to photograph and video customers and guests for various accountability purposes*.
In contrast, a private courtyard closed to the public and the area of chalking not easily accessible or videoed from the public street according to several Y alums posting here IS AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE greater expectation of privacy for those whose space it is…the residential community of that particular residential college.
- I.e. In case customer/group absconds without paying, causes damage to vehicle, or verbally/physically assaults the driver or other affiliated employees.
Interesting question-should someone making a public statement (chalking a sidewalk or participating in a protest) expect their message to remain private? Was the message meant only to be seen my members of the immediate community or would it extend to invited guests of a member of the community or the larger public? This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I’m curious to hear views on this.
It seems this latest discussion implies that it is acceptable to scream f* you at your Residential College Master because RC is a private space.
But the bus frat boys were not filmed by the bus company, but it appears to have been by one of their guests on the bus. In the same way, a guest was in the private space at Yale and filmed the encounter. Not sure there is a difference here in terms of expectation of privacy. You can argue that there was no expectation of privacy or that there was an expectation of privacy, but seems like it is either true or not true in both instances.
Difference is if the bus company/driver owns the vehicle, passengers have no reasonable expectation of privacy as it effectively is considered “public space” from their vantage point. If the bus company can do it in their spaces and there’s no prohibition on the passengers/guests to do so from said company…it’s effectively a public space regarding filming/privacy concerned.
Very different from the courtyard as the courtyard is considered a private space sealed off from the public and one which belongs to members of the residential college community…not the public at large or outside guests. There’s also the complication that Yale has a rule on their books prohibiting any filming in those areas though how and to whom they’d emphasize enforcement is a question only Y insiders would know.
I’ll defer to Y alums like Jonri who stated the area where the chalking occurred isn’t one viewable/accessible from the nearby public street.
You keep saying that as if just because you say it enough times, it becomes true. And I’m referring to speech that was made in a privately owned bus that a government entity later punished as to content.
Sounds like if you despise the speech, not private. If you agree, private.
Actually, this very factor is one reason why an ex-Taco Bell Communications Exec who was caught on film assaulting the driver cannot sue him for “violation of his privacy rights” and the evidence can be used against him in criminal proceedings.
And while the bus was privately owned, it was owned by the chartered bus company…NOT the party which hired out the bus. If there’s any right to privacy…it applies to the Charter bus company which owns the bus…not the passengers and their guests.
Therefore…unless the bus company itself had prohibitions on the passengers and their guests filming on the bus which doesn’t seem to be the case as it would have been publicized if it was…the one doing the filming was in his/her rights to do so as if in a public space and police/college administrations can use the evidence in criminal/collegiate judicial disciplinary proceedings.
The courtyard of a residential college is way less private than a rented bus full of invited guests. It’s not the public square, but it belongs to 400+ people who aren’t selected by the membership. In my experience it’s also very common that unaffiliated Yalies are present, not to mention guests from elsewhere.
Several Y alums like Jonri have claimed otherwise, especially considering they also mentioned the courtyards are closed to the public and require an encoded college ID passcard to gain access. In another post, Jonri likened it to the private courtyard in her apartment building which is reserved for residents and their guests only and as with Stillman College courtyard is closed to the public.
That’s far more restrictive than the courtyards of most Harvard Houses I’ve visited/stayed in considering they’re open to the public and anyone could wander in.
I think I’ll defer to the Ys on this one.
I did not intend my point to re-start the debate on on whether technically the courtyard area was public or private, though I agree it’s somewhat relevant. Rather, what I was trying to say is that it’s no secret that cell phones are ubiquitous, it’s no secret that their cameras are used constantly (especially by young people), and it’s no secret that scandalous videos have a way of ending up on YouTube. No one is assured privacy anymore, frankly. This is unfortunate for the Yale girl, it is unfortunate for a bunch of boorish frat boys on a bus, and it’s unfortunate for large numbers of kids recorded doing all manner of stupid things. All of them may see an impact on their futures.
Furthermore, college seniors are definitely adults and college students, by participating in protests, are engaging in adult behavior. A protest of the demonstration variety, is, by definition, a public activity. By screaming at an authority figure outside in the open air, the Yale girl exposed herself to being heard by many people both inside and outside the courtyard. Some have explained that anyone can easily see into the courtyard from outside. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I do know that I can shriek like a shrew at my husband inside my own home, but I can have no expectation of protection from the neighbors hearing me yell and drawing unfavorable conclusions. That’s life.
However, if someone chose to film you shrieking at your H…even through an open window from across the street, that individual could face criminal sanctions for violation of your reasonable expectation of privacy in your own private residence/area.
Now unless that guest in the fraternity bus ends up facing prosecution for his/her filming of the frat boys making the racist chant, what he/she did wasn’t a violation of their reasonable expectation of privacy under the law.
“if someone chose to film you shrieking at your H…even through an open window from across the street, that individual could face criminal sanctions for violation of your reasonable expectation of privacy in your own private residence/area.”
I’m a lawyer. You are wrong. First of all, the expectation of privacy analysis only has to do with government actors watching you, not private citizens. But even if we’re talking about government actors, who are held to a higher standard, if you do something in plain view of other people, there’s no expectation of privacy, even if you’re on your own property. If you leave your window open, and you bend over a mirror in your own house snorting coke in view of a cop walking by on the public street, he can arrest you.
Recording voices is a different matter, and varies by jurisdiction as a matter of state and local law. For the most part, though, those laws don’t have anything to do with the expectation of privacy – in some states, you can’t record a private conversation even if it’s in a public place. But you can take still or moving photographs of anything that’s in plain view from a place you have a right to be.
@Cobrat,
In Connecticut it is legal to record someone on their own property as long as you don’t step onto it. IOW, I can film you arguing with your spouse in your back yard from the sidewalk. The exception is something called “unreasonable intrusion”, for instance, sitting in a tree and using a telephoto lens to photograph you in your bathroom.
(cross posted with Hanna)
Way back in post #582, Classicalmama posted links to Yale’s policy on filming on campus:
This seems to be an issue for FIRE. Lukianoff is President of FIRE. He took the video and posted it on-line. I find Lukianoff an unsympathetic self-promoter.
https://www.thefire.org/the-right-to-film-on-campus/
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2015/11/20/yale-and-the-national-media/
Before we go yet another round on this one individual, I urge each of us to think back on occasions that we are glad we were not being filmed. If you can’t think of any, you’re a saint already and should be full of forgiveness anyway.
Did I miss something ?
Did the young woman apologize for losing her temper and
indicate regret for the way she expressed herself ?
Not talking about content.
If I was a student there who had traumatic exposure to family members with anger control issues I
might have been “triggered” by her lack of self control.
What would my recourse have been ?
Catching it on film was probably unfortunate but on the other hand I have notice many of these
protests and their members are very aware and proactive about using social media and video to
spread their message. Supporters would say it shows her “passion”.
“Did the young woman apologize for losing her temper and
indicate regret for the way she expressed herself ?”
Is she supposed to call a press conference?
Yes, because protected speech and physical assault are the same thing…