Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

brightpilot6 said:Whether someone is a believer or a journalist—that isn't really an argument, is it? At least not from a legal standpoint. Just because a church is considered sacred ground doesn't mean the laws of the United States suddenly stop applying within its walls.

As for the whole issue of tradition, if there were an absolute, universal ban on filming inside religious spaces, I might actually understand the sentiment. But we see journalists walking into churches every single Sunday specifically to do their jobs and provide live broadcasts. The people being filmed aren't asked for permission, nor should they have to give it—much like you wouldn't expect to be asked for consent while being captured on camera at a local farmers market, a restaurant, or a concert. By stepping out into a public space, you are essentially agreeing to waive a portion of the privacy you would otherwise enjoy in the sanctuary of your own home. In the end, we are left with millions of such recordings circulating everywhere.

Mass and the church are meant for the congregation, not for the press.

Journalists and camera crews enter those spaces because they are AUTHORIZED to be there. The law addresses unauthorized filming, plain and simple. I'm pretty sure you understand the distinction between being authorized and being an interloper. I think I'll leave it at that, though—it seems like you're perfectly fine with disregarding US law, whereas I am definitely not. 🙂

urbanhawk17 said:Is it actually possible that you guys are back on this again?

Pathetic.

ironpanther5 said:Pure nonsense. A church isn't a public town square. And yes, I absolutely can bar you from entering a shopping mall. Go ahead, try walking into a mall with a camera and let me know how that works out for you. Why on earth would anyone give their consent to be filmed when they chose to show up at a location voluntarily? Good grief, I'm shocked and appalled that someone might discover today that priests actually set the rules of conduct inside a church. 🙂

Your entire argument is pure nonsense.

Are you really trying to suggest that I could show up at a Cathedral in the middle of the night and somehow forbid it from being filmed and broadcast on CNN 🤣?

There are thousands of cameras capturing you in public spaces every single day without a videographer ever needing your permission.

And as for filming in shopping malls, surely we can all agree that there are millions of journalistic photos and videos—not to mention private ones—taken in those spaces constantly.

So, I find myself asking once more: who actually barred this reporter from entering in the first place, such that she could even be accused of breaking a rule?

Amy Nelson4 said:Mass and the church are meant for the congregation, not for the press.

Journalists and camera crews enter those spaces because they are AUTHORIZED to be there. The law addresses unauthorized filming, plain and simple. I'm pretty sure you understand the distinction between being authorized and being an interloper. I think I'll leave it at that, though—it seems like you're perfectly fine with disregarding US law, whereas I am definitely not. 🙂

I’m not particularly interested in your opinion or how you would personally handle the situation; what concerns me is the existing legal framework. And since no law was broken, there is nothing more to discuss.

You seem to be completely blurring legal categories, and honestly, you might be better off staying out of this entirely, given that you're talking nonsense.

brightpilot6 said:Did this "authorized official"—whoever that might be—actually prohibit them from entering or filming before it even happened?

https://ibb.co/qMNY1Lf
Are we talking about this specific situation in the photo or just speaking in generalities here? There’s no filming without permission, plain and simple—it's private property. And when it comes to baptisms, everything is handled by prior agreement. The priest is the one calling the shots, so thanks for pointing that out.
The only thing you actually managed to nail in this entire debate is that American laws apply inside the church, too.

Honestly, this is just pure nonsense. I don't really have anything else to say to you all.

I only wanted to see if there was perhaps some detail I had overlooked, but based on what you've all said, it seems there’s nothing to find here other than a complete lack of understanding regarding the regulations. At this point, I don't see much value in trying to fix anyone else's flawed logic.

brightpilot6 said:Your entire argument is pure nonsense.

Are you really trying to suggest that I could show up at a Cathedral in the middle of the night and somehow forbid it from being filmed and broadcast on CNN 🤣?

There are thousands of cameras capturing you in public spaces every single day without a videographer ever needing your permission.

And as for filming in shopping malls, surely we can all agree that there are millions of journalistic photos and videos—not to mention private ones—taken in those spaces constantly.

So, I find myself asking once more: who actually barred this reporter from entering in the first place, such that she could even be accused of breaking a rule?

Look, you clearly don't grasp the concept of private property. You absolutely can ban filming for the BBC. For heaven's sake, use your brain.
Try walking into a mall with a professional camera slung over your shoulder and see how fast a security guard comes running over to you.

brightpilot6 said:I would say yes. It’s much like a movie theater or a concert hall, really. There is a certain line you shouldn't cross regarding the intended purpose of the space, of course, but since the Church itself encourages filming the congregation for broadcasts, why should news crews be treated any differently when they arrive under similar circumstances? After all, isn't the ritual meant to be seen?

In two churches I know, there's a Sign at the entrance banning cell phones, photography, and pets inside the sanctuary.

I have no idea what kind of logic leads you to believe that a church, as an organization owning its own real estate, suddenly becomes equivalent to public space where everything goes. I'm no lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that's nonsense. It’s not like a cinema owned by the AMC group is a public space. It isn't.

ironpanther5 said:Look, you clearly don't grasp the concept of private property. You absolutely can ban filming for the BBC. For heaven's sake, use your brain.
Try walking into a mall with a professional camera slung over your shoulder and see how fast a security guard comes running over to you.

I’ll tell you once more: you're mixing up your categories, treating pears like they're apples. You won't accept that, of course, but quite frankly, I couldn't care less.

Whether or not a security guard approaches me, and what the actual limits of their authority are, is an entirely different matter altogether.

Boo Ziza got absolutely shredded, yet he just keeps stubbornly doing his own thing... 🙏

If someone catches you on camera without you explicitly telling them they can't, that doesn't mean they actually have permission.
Just because someone films inside a Cathedral and nobody snatches their phone away doesn't make it legal. Just because you film a game at the stadium and the security guard doesn't kick you out doesn't mean you're officially allowed to be filming. Is that clear enough now?

The church IS a private space! Just because tourists snap photos of EMPTY churches doesn't mean it's "allowed"—it just means they aren't getting caught. Recording a mass for public use is strictly FORBIDDEN without the Priest giving the green light.

Look, you can't just show up and say, "Hey, don't film me," if the Priest has already granted permission to record. If the two of us were hanging out at your place and I started filming you while you were getting roasted, that doesn't mean Hilde can just show up at your apartment tomorrow unannounced, walk right in, and start filming you while you're getting roasted all over again.

Besides, haven't we already exhausted this topic? Give us something new.

It really only takes three clicks on Google to stumble upon how our judicial practice and legal theory actually define public space, which makes it perfectly clear that such an area can indeed be privately owned. Ultimately, what matters during a crisis is the function the space serves, rather than who holds the deed. But of course, it’s much easier to just swagger around flaunting your own ignorance. Total Idiocracy.

Honestly, I’m just wondering—was the law actually being broken at that moment because the Mass was happening, or not?

Someone should tell Ziza that since the Congress building is basically public space, they can do whatever they want there... then maybe go explain to the Museums that they’re public spaces too, so you can just film whoever you please. Or better yet, head over to some schools and explain that you have total freedom to record people whenever you feel like it...

urbanhawk17 said:Honestly, I’m just wondering—was the law actually being broken at that moment because the Mass was happening, or not?

Yeah, Zupnik received the report, and the men who attacked the journalist did too. Whether Zupnik decides to file a lawsuit against her remains to be seen...

Paul Martinez73 said:Yeah, Zupnik received the report, and the men who attacked the journalist did too. Whether Zupnik decides to file a lawsuit against her remains to be seen...

Why weren't the people who showed up to the mass reported too?

I mean, they should have been, right?

Paul Martinez73 said:Someone should tell Ziza that since the Congress building is basically public space, they can do whatever they want there... then maybe go explain to the Museums that they’re public spaces too, so you can just film whoever you please. Or better yet, head over to some schools and explain that you have total freedom to record people whenever you feel like it...

The thing is, you aren't grasping this at all, not even these simpler points. 🤣

urbanhawk17 said:Why weren't the people who showed up to the mass reported too?

I mean, they should have been, right?

Nah, because they were keeping their distance, weren't clustered together, and actually followed social distancing guidelines.

It’s like if your barber reopened his shop; you wouldn't get a citation just for going in to get a haircut...

brightpilot6 said:The thing is, you aren't grasping this at all, not even these simpler points. 🤣

It’s always so easy to drop a "LOL" when you're clearly in the wrong. I wonder what the legal precedent says about that... ☕

It is honestly quite pathetic when someone carries themselves with such immense arrogance, despite being so utterly devoid of basic logic or any real capacity for thought.

urbanhawk17 said:Honestly, I’m just wondering—was the law actually being broken at that moment because the Mass was happening, or not?

Of course it was. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Church, it seems like a totally different set of rules applies compared to the rest of us mere mortals. Thank goodness most people actually follow the law, though.