Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sub-Driver
The picture was taken in a public place, so her consent was not necessary.

But she posed for the picture, so it was also consensual.

Additionally, the photo belongs to the restaurant owner.

Moreover, given the fact that restaurants have the right to display even indecent photographs, he has the right to display an innocuous one.

It can hardly be considered advertising since the viewers are already customers or prospective customers - they are inside the restaurant. It is not being used as an endorsement or a solicitation.

What this is is a man who has powerful friends and who wields enough influence to ruin this man's business threatening a man who has done nothing wrong.

25 posted on 09/26/2007 9:11:55 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: wideawake
It can hardly be considered advertising since the viewers are already customers or prospective customers - they are inside the restaurant. It is not being used as an endorsement or a solicitation.

The letter specifies that it's in the front window.

74 posted on 09/26/2007 10:16:20 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson