No need to be condescending - especially considering the fact that you admittedly didn't even bother to educate yourself on the topic before commenting.

"..that law was fixed..." - Not really - the way the new law is written doesn't necessarily make all upskirt photos illegal, as it requires certain specific conditions regarding the manner in which upskirt photos are taken in order for the act to be considered in violation of the law. From what I recall of the…

That isn't being "more specific" - that is changing your argument.

It's not surprising that pretty much all of the comments pointing out how misleading and factually inaccurate this story is are at the bottom. It is the standard MO here with these types of stories to present them in a completely misleading way in order to generate outrage at something that never happened. I'm waiting…

A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public (with limited exceptions), and stalking is not a form of expression or protected speech. Whether either is a form of "unwelcome surveillance" is not the basis of the law.

Purposeful misrepresentation is the typical MO here. One can't generate false outrage by sticking to the facts.

Nobody's rights are being denied here - they are being restored. Photographing a person who is out in public is not violating them.

Photography (along with many other forms of non-verbal expression) is a form of protected speech - so yes, it is a First Amendment issue.

Unless the leaks are a result of the service's wrongdoing (or acts determined legally negligent), they can't be held liable. You are advocating for service providers to be held legally responsible for crimes committed against them. Were that the case, none of these (or countless other types of) services would exist.

As important a detail as it is, the writer left out the fact that he photos were taken on campus.

??? I thought you didn't care anymore and were moving on...? Yet here you are, initiating another round...

"Just thought you may need some help moving on." - Says the person posting multiple replies to the same comment.

Willful ignorance at its best.

Holy cow. It's not an interpretation or my "criteria" - it is literally the definition of the word. Your lack of acknowledgement of the dictionary definition of the word here is what is called "willful ignorance". You presented your argument in your initial post, and have been arguing it ever since in each subsequent…

Well, words mean things. You don't have to be contradicting anyone to put forth an argument, as you did. You made an opinion-based statement, and backed it up with your reasoning. That, by definition, is an argument.

You were giving reason as to why you think the dust in the photo is "orbs" indicating the presence of some kind of spirit. So, yes; argue would be the correct word.

Then why argue that they are anything but dust? They are dust. They are not spirits, and not "an orb that was caught flying about, mid-moment, as the picture was taken and left a trail" - they are dust.

The "orbs" are nothing but dust.

Yes they did (and told their readership to watch it) - though they were compelled by the courts to remove the video clip (but refused to remove the article describing the entire encounter).

Gawker Media even posts them sometimes.