Part of the ship, part of the people making memes of themselves looking awkward near Disney Villains (not endorsed by Disney.) Can they not tag the image up insinuation_first or imperial_droids_dropped_in_for_photo and whatnot? Or is that the FB equivalent of honking their moobs?
1 Like
Sheās not saying that people who oppose Britain First are fools. Sheās saying that youād be a fool to jump to conclusions about her daughter being a racist from a mere photo. But such fools exists, sadly.
Itās no small matter, being mis-identified as a racist would lock you out of most work-places in the UK. The risk of a lawsuit would just be too big for the employer to give you the benefit of doubt.
1 Like
The BFās claim is that their thugs were working with the Sea Cadets, with the Cadetsā full knowledge and approval, to āprotectā them for a sustained period - not just talking a quick selfie as they passed. In that sense, they are using it in a promotional way, and didnāt obtain informed consent. Iām not even sure minors are able to give legal consent.
The photo itself seems legal - the questionable part is that itās being used as evidence of something that didnāt happen and the Cadets wouldnāt have welcomed.
1 Like
I donāt have access to fb, but the screen shot you have actually seems promotional to me: something about the group āBritainās Firstā protecting Poppy Day. This group IS promoting their organization by claiming that without them Poppy Day wouldā¦disappear?
Sure, but I meant that it is not formally promotional. If people wanted to split hairs, it could be assumed that any photo on fb is promoting the photographer, subject, or whoevers page it is. What if they were in an empty park saying that they were itās āguardiansā? Nobody would assert that this was promotional, simply because the kids arenāt there. I think itās a murky area in peopleās mass distribution of photos generally. If I show myself at an event, am I officially endorsing it? Or them me? If I claim responsibility for an event online, am I really promoting it, or myself in any meaningful way?
These things are left deliberately undefined because they are so ubiquitous, and such companies rely upon the phenomena to provide them with terabytes of content that they donāt pay for. But then once the status quo is used by somebody controversial, everybody wants to lawyer them. I can understand why, but I think itās more just for people to stick to their own rules instead of using selective enforcement.
As a disclaimer, I do not follow British law very closely, so things may be more or less defined than I am aware of in US law.
1 Like
No, youāre correct. Itās not splitting hairs, AND Iāve noticed that every commercial interest has a facebook page (or so it seems).
Honestly, I have no idea about fbās policies except that Iām sure everything in their EULA benefits fb, not the user 
I think California has an āoopsā law protecting minors with respect to the internet. I always wondered how enforceable it isā¦
P -
Thanks for sharing the GIF - Iāve saved it for future use.
A picture is worth a thousand wordsā¦Hereās my contribution -
(Found in Google Image Search - I was looking for M. Pythonās Mr. Gumby - but here, I like this.)
2 Likes
At least one of those girls is violating Facebookās terms of use at 12 - sheās the real villain here /s
Iām thinking about the fact that your image can be distributed without permission on Facebook even when you arenāt a member.
In fact, as a non-user you canāt even see if your picture is on Facebook, as even āpublicā posts arenāt accessible from the real Internet.
Facebook is a colossal parasite sucking time and money out of humanity.
/rant
2 Likes
From what I know about New Zealand law, and UK laws on this type of thing are pretty similar AFAIK, there could be grounds for a defamation case.
The Sea Cadetās as an organisation wouldnāt have a case, unless they could prove financial harm, but the families of the girls might have one.
If they could show that the photo implies the girls support or associate with Britain First, and that would damage their reputation in the eyes of a āreasonableā person, they could get compensation and have the photo taken down.
Thatās the biggest joint I ever seen, heās gonna be hella high!
and here i thought itās a reference to the hidden nipple.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
