₦airaland Forum

aribisala0:
Well You should follow your own advice about no need for long arguments?
Now you are talking about comprehension?
~First the only reason I quoted you was because you talked about smashing his phone. You later said you exaggerated. OK
Next we were talking about reasonable expectation of privacy and you were arguing he is not a public official .
Clearly you are a dishonest fellow with a fondness for pointless arguments. You shifted from that to harassment . Now you are saying I said . I can't tell whether he is close or not so we have move from smashing phone to Privacy to measuring distance . And now you are introducing sentimentality . I made it clear all along what I want to talk about and what I do not want to talk about.
I am not here to discuss facts inside the video or to argue them or buttress them about what happened just the legal principle that ; In the US you can film in public anybody whether they consent or not.
Reflect on that and see who is pursuing pointless arguments. You have been up and down the thread arguing with different people that does not mean I am having those same arguments with you. At some point you even quoted me jointly with one of you opponents as if we are teammates.
Guy I was not there and do not want to discuss the facts of what happened there.
All I am saying is anyone in public can be filmed. If that filming is done in a way that is threatening harassing etc that is another matter but a totally parallel one to whether there is a right to privacy as you have ignorantly stated

Lol... what's with this man running all about in circles? I already made my point; its offensive and can be classed as harrassment if you approach a strangers and start filming them right on their faces... Period!

You're free to disagree if you want. Feel free to approach strangers next time you're abroad and stick a camera to their faces; when you do that, we will know who's running around making irrelevant pointless arguments.

aribisala0:
No need for long arguments ? SO why are you still quoting me? You want to have the last word? You are not saying anything you have not already said . Just recycling the same stuff.You just keep shifting all the time. The issue is not about HOW you film but if you can . You started off mouthing a lot of rubbish about Privacy and I am telling you there is NOTHING like that. Now you are talking about harassment?? WTF
I am not the other person you have jointly quoted me with. Please stop doing that. I am the one that should tell you no need for long argument.
My position is that in the US you have the right to film any person with your phone in any place that is a public place as long as you do not break other laws. I have repeatedly made it clear I am not talking about the specifics or facts of this Aregbesola story because as far as I am concerned I do not have all the facts just a one sided presentation. You have talked as if you were physically there making all kinds of wild assertions. I am not engaging on that.
You have the right to ride your car but not to drive against traffic. If he broke the law WHILST filming I do not Know but FILMIING itself is not against the law. That is all I am talking about whether he was harassing or invading personal space or in Aregbesola's face as far as I am concerned is a mere speculative allegation.
Once you get out of your house you can be filmed subject to the constitution and extant laws.
You know what honestly I am not interested in you silly scenarios they are irrelevant to me

It's unfortunate if you cant comprehend what I'm saying; no one has said anywhere that filming in public spaces is against the law. But when your filming is becoming intrusive of a person's personal space, it becomes an 'invasion', and that cant be right by any law.

You say you cant tell from the video whether he was close to Aregbe or not, but that's your opinion; everyone else who's watched the video can easily tell that that guy was pretty close to Aregbe, possibly within ~6ft away (Aregbe could actual stretch out a hand and almost touch the camera). If you think it's okay to do that to strangers you see on the road, or if you think the law is okay with that, well, I dont know what else to say.

1stGenAmerican:
I’ll ask you kindly to please stop attempting to educate me on the law, especially when you don’t have a good understanding of those very laws.
You’re misinterpreting the law and conflating wiretapping and recording laws with videotaping and it’s like comparing mangoes to garden eggs. Even with wiretapping and recording phone conversations, some states don’t require advance permission.
Video Recording and taking photos of people in public spaces, whether it includes sound or not, is legal in all 50 states.
You continue to beat a dead horse because Aregbe was in a public space and there is no privacy within public spaces. Regardless of how you twist it, the man recording him committed no crime.

aribisala0:
Which law does not permit audio recording without permission?.
Whether or not he was keeping a reasonable distance is debatable. I do not know and neither do you. You say he was "in his face" ? Did he kiss him? We did not even see the guy's face or body and can only infer from the video
At some point in the video it was Aregbesola that moved TOWARD the guy to block recording. So one could argue they were in each other's faces. There is in some US states a principle of stand your ground .

Let us not comment on things we are not witnesses to as if we were.
I am only talking about the legal principles IN GENERAL.
You say he was "harassing" him. Well that is an opinion. others might say he was trolling .I do not want to get into debates about opinions. What is a fact is that at some point Aregbesola invited him to sit with him so if harassment occurred at what point did an invitation to sit change to a harassment experience. I do not know the law for that particular jurisdiction but generally harassment would indicate actions OCCURRING AT LEAST TWICE. on two or more separate occasions

The legal principle of concern is what are the redress options to harassment.
In approaching any debate it is important to clarify what the issues are to avoid being all over the place.

Lol... For a second, expunge it from your minds that this is a 'Nigerian Politician' which we all love to hate; also, imagine that it wasnt a man, but a young lady.

Imagine you walk into a restaurant and you see a young lady, maybe sitting with her child at a corner. Then you walk towards her, rip out your camera, and from a close distance of less than 6ft from her face, you start recording her. She tells you to stop because she feels uncomfortable with your behaviour, but you bluntly refuse and say "this is America so you have a right to do whatever you want".... While trying this social experiment, make sure the police is nearby. When the police is called upon, I would love to hear how you can defend your actions that it wasn't harassment.

No need for long arguments, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an expert in the law, and I know next to nothing about American laws. But my common sense already tells me if I do the bolded above, it definitely constitutes public nuisance and harassment.

drakeli:
First of all, remember that nobody knows you. You are not a public figure. Aregbe is a public figure in public space. In America, he can be recorded. The only problem I have with the guy recording is that he’s too close. He could do that 8 feet’s away with no problem

You're correct, whether he's a private or public figure doesnt matter in this case. Videoing a person in public isnt also the issue; the issue here is that he didnt keep a reasonable distance, and that already constitutes an invasion of private space/harassment.

aribisala0:
Following you around is another matter which may be unlawful
The principle is that it is lawful to make a video recording. Doing so in an intrusive manner e.g shining bright lights on a person's face, invading personal space making abusive or inappropriate remarks etc may be a public order offence but if I am not in your personal space I can record even the police.
If you are in public you cannot assert "privacy" violation. Smashing phone?? Well are you King Kong.? You go look face before you smash. No matter how hard you are there is always a harder man.
This is the US where people carry guns so that approach might get you some surprises . You have no right to smash anyone's phone but could lose your life trying to do that. Violence as tempting as it is solves few things

Was exaggerating when I said "smashing his phone". But the point is that the man was clearly invading another person's privacy. No crime in recording a person in public, but you have to keep a reasonable distance. That man was literally in Aregbe's face and following him around.

1stGenAmerican:
No invasion of privacy occurred. The police would’ve calmly explained that there’s no privacy in a public space.

The law doesnt prohibit video recording a person in a public space, as long as you keep a 'REASONABLE DISTANCE'.

The laws also doesnt permit audio recording a person without their permission. So in this context, 'reasonable distance' may just be defined as 'a distance far enough for you not to capture an audio recording of the person's private conversation in your video'.

Imagine for one second that that was a young lady with a child, and then the man walks up to her, right in her face and starts videoing. You really think the law would permit such invasion simply because it's a public place?

That man was in Aregbe's face literally, that was a clear case of invasion and the police would have dragged him away to at least 10 metres away.

aribisala0:
NO .

You are in public and there is no privacy as long as they keep a reasonable distance . Does not make any difference that he is a public official that is irrelevant.
Anything that is in your visual field that you can record with your eyes in a public space you can record with your phone.
Why not invest a little time and do some research?
The legal positions is that is you are in public you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy

So why not Google

REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
If a person did not undertake reasonable efforts to conceal something from a casual observer (as opposed to a snoop), then no subjective expectation of privacy is assumed

Apparently there's no law against videoing a person in public. But it's important to keep a 'reasonable' distance. The man videoing Aregbe obviously wasn't keeping a 'reasonable' distance, he was right in his face and literally harrassing him - public official or not, that was wrong!

I believe while the law doesnt prohibit videoing a person without their consent, the law doesnt permit you to audio record a person without their permission. So in this context, I guess 'reasonable distance' may be defined as 'a distance far enough to catch an audio recording of whatever the person is saying'.

MALIGNANTGuest:
I will listen to you only if you live in America.
The US has got funny Laws.
I have seen a worse situation than AREGBEsola's

A Female shoplifter can sue you for sexual harassment if you grab her arms in a bid to arrest her & u can't block her from walking away.
Only the police can...however passers by can except in a situation of citizens arrest where the situation becomes life threatening.

freemi:
oga the way the law handles such privacy of public figure is different from normal persons except not in ur shithole.

I just read a piece; there's no law in most parts of the US against recording a video of a person without their permission, as long as your video has no audio recording. Making an audio recording of a person without their permission is against the law.

MALIGNANTGuest:
He may have arrived the US on a diplomatic passport. That makes him a public officer too.
People record videos live in public places in the United States. You can't stop them.
Not even AREGBE would...

The moment he requested to stop being followed and recorded, what that man was doing automatically turned into an invasion of privacy and harrassment. If the police were there, the man would have been dragged away.

You're in a free country doesnt mean you have the right to freely walk up to a person, invade their space and start recording them without their consent.

freemi:
yea that's if u r nt public figure

Where does the law draw the line dividing private and public individuals? Even public figures must have a right to privacy, especially when they arent on any live official engagement. From the moment he requested to stop being followed and recorded, I believe what that man was doing turned into an invasion of privacy/harrasment.

MALIGNANTGuest:
IF AREGBE RASCAL had destroyed that phone he would have suffered immensely.
USA has got funny Laws, unlike Naija oo
That Guy will win the case!
He's a public officer & such extends to him.
He can be recorded at any point in time especially in the public.

Is he a public official in the US? Is he in the US on any assignment as a public official from Nigeria? If a stranger walks up to you with a phone and starts recording, dont you think that's an invasion of your privacy?

I think the guy recording is just being stupid. If a stranger just comes and starts following me around and recording me closely with my camera, I believe I have the right to even smash his phone for invading my privacy and threatening my life.

Hmmm... surgery in Nigeria?

By 2moro when final results are announced, the gbedu nor go easy

Omo.. The brindge don stand gidigba!!

elnino83:
@op your English and pronunciation is terrible , always post your video without explaining what the video is about .. it’s annoying cos the video is self explanatory

I swear I thought I was the only one that that introduction irritates.

Bomboiy:
And who told you we care about PDP?

If you are so worried about APC winning then you should gather your fellow PDP supporters to vote for Labour party because we will not go back to the north after 8yrs of Buhari.

I wonder oo... If the fellow who opened this thread really cared so much about kicking APC out, why doesnt he gather his PDP comrades to vote Obi?

Fuckingmallam45:
Imagine back then, if Soludo were to contest for the position of president, just like present Obi, the whole social medias would have tried to portray him as a saint for us, and we might definitely believe them, just see what is happening now. Is Soludo not young? Is Soludo not educated? Is Soludo not vibrant?
Politics is more than all these aforementioned, people that are supporting Obi should think it well, what if he happened not to be the Messiah they all hope for? But anyway, as for Soludo, he might definitely have a good reason for doing that. I pray such a reason to yield positively and be a welcome development.

In response to the bolded, no one truly knows if Obi will be messiah; but given this uncertainty, could the true messiah be Atiku or Tinubu?

The people going for Obi are just placing their bets on Obi over the others.

Apparently Tinubu supporters are doing a good job at ensuring that Peter Obi has a ton of negative comments which neutralise his net positive comments. Likewise, Peter Obi supporters are ensuring Tinubu has more than a sufficient share of negative comments. At the end of the day, no one is talking of Atiku (besides his own supporters givving positive comments); so it makes sense if Atiku is currently leading in terms of the 'net' positive comments.

Even though Reno is a he-goat, the petition is just stupid. What Sowore said is the truth, this is pure cyber bullying by a mob of illiterate fanatics.

May this silly online mob not end up demarketing Obi before 2023!

richie240:
here we go again

"Feigning ignorance" of what specifically?
You've refused to address any of the questions I threw at ur feet.

Lolz.....
Even d op dt woke up early this morning to create a false-hood of a thread don collect hin 'L' jejely, u still dey dia dey form king-kong!
C'mon taaa dia!

Oga I don agree with you say that niggee na Obi pikin. Why you still dey worry yourself?

1stGenAmerican:
The doctor confidently lodged the claim that he was underage and you can be sure the doctor backed it with genetic testing. His true age has yet to be revealed by anyone but paidNigerian media outlets. The fraudulent passport listed his age as 41 and no one, not even the senator’s lawyer, has been able to debunk that claim.

Lol...

1stGenAmerican:
The boy never claimed he was 15, the doctors who alerted the authorities did. His age, though not a driving factor, has yet to be disproven and no credible news coming out of the UK has reported that.
If there was a victory in this case, the suspects wouldn’t be still rotting in jail. Whatever happened in court today was enough to keep them in custody.

Lol.. Are you listening to yourself? That the doctors and not the boy are the ones who claimed he's 15? So a white doctor just sees a boy and just assigns an age to him?

Indeed, what 'hate' cannot do to the rationality of humans does not exist!

richie240:
There goes the ipobic spirit: insults and curses;
Perhaps if u had addressed d questions and observations I made instead of rigmarolling....it would go a long way in having a diplomatic dialogue devoid of insults and fist-throwing.

I'm still open to dialogue with you though!

It's pointless arguing with a madman; but you know what's even worse? Arguing with a person who's feigning ignorance (i.e. you). It's a pointless waste of time so yeah, I wouldn't be doing that. Good day!

lexy2014:
How is that? Pls explain

The boy claiming to be a 15 year old minor was the first red flag which got the authorities interested in the case. With that 'minor' claim proven to be false, it's the first victory for the Ekweremadus. Let's watch and seee how the case goes; no need for long arguments. My bet is that the Ekweremadus will eventually be let off the hook.

richie240:
Errmm....bia nwokem, its not that I didn't see gidgíddy's post or that he made much sense with his postulations o, I purposely chose to press d 'ignore' button. He's a confirmed ipob of which u r aware of and its a waste of time having a dialogue with him. I've never seen him find ipob capable in any crime, so it would be an effort in futility responding to him. Perhaps if he had quoted me using one of his alternate monikers I would've budged.

Now back to u, I laid bare some questions/observations which u haven't responded to. Perhaps u may take d gauntlet!

Daalu!

Your argument is like that of a person without a brain; however, I know you aren't brainless. You're just deliberately trying to sound dumb in a desperate bid to sustain the dead and ignorant argument that the fellow in that picture is Obi's son. Given the circumstances, engaging further with you is pointless and a waste of precious time. Hence why I said, "you win!"

The hatred people have for Ekweremadu has just blocked their sense of reasoning. So many people in this thread rejoicing that he will be spending many years in jail; they obviously fail to see the real picture being that he just won the first hurdle in the case. The boy lying about being a minor already rubbishes the entire case in Ekweremadus favour.

gidgiddy:
So you actually dont believe that a protester can back away from a protest group and take a seperate individual picture?

Or you would rather believe that within 2 days this story broke, Peter Obi managed to get someone in Germany who has deadlocks, dress him in the same exact attire, take pictures on a similar road, just to deflect accusations from his son?

Thats not possible

I posted the 3 pictures below side by side; but somehow the fellow you quoted strongly believes that the person on the flag is Obi's son while the other 2 pictures are of a totally different person taken on a different day, with exactly the same stature, same outfit, same shoe and same location.

A funny fact of life is that the most difficult person to wake is the person who's faking his sleep; you cannot educate a person who desperately and forcefully wants to remain dumb.

richie240:
**Just when one thot u were different from d average ipob**

"Standing by the side ko, sitting by d bridge ni"
1. The pictures d op posted showed nearly 180° of d perspective yet not a single 'plotester' was seen unlike d one showing the boy standing on d flag.

2. The colors of d sides of the cars are different, which clearly shows dt d cars are different. The original picture had green while d fake had a blue.
Don't tell us the reflection of d sun made d colors change o,, ehn-ehn.

3. If d boy in d original picture wasn't Gregory obi, why should u lots go all d way to replicate an 'adulterated' copy of d scene? Ehn? Maka why?




Una nor go kee person with comedy.
Ipobs?
Hian!

No further statements. He is Obi's son, you win!

richie240:
You still don't gerrit,
1. The op is trying to tell us that the boy in his pwn pictures is d same person as d one stepping on d flag. Poser: are they the same?

2. The op is saying that the pictures he posted and d one showing the boy standing on d flag were taken on d same day. Poser: where were the other protesters? They all took a break when the pictures were being taken right?

1. Go back and read my last post; I just modified it.

2. Obviously the protesters were standing by the side of the road (to the right of the fellow standing on the flag). You obviously can't see them in the second pictures because of the camera angle (in the second picture, the camera was facing the road). Anybody with a functional brain already can figure this out, but the only reason I've taken the pain to explain this to you is because I understand not everyone out there has a functional brain.

Good day!