Questions About Trespassing

Good question and I suspect most Americans (including me) don't know much. Unfortunately it seems that anyone can take pictures of other people without their permission, although many television shows have the courtesy to block out faces in a crowd if they don't have permission. As for inside the house vs. inside the gate, I feel that it would be wrong to walk onto someone's property without their permission just to, for example, see their flowers up close, but it would be OK to go up to deliver a package or knock on their door. In many news cases, reporters seem to surround people's houses, trampling their plants, preventing people from going in and out, until the courts issue a Restraining Order or something. I'm not sure about this last, but privacy seems to be a hard thing to protect outside the home. Paparazzi seem to be allowed to take pictures of celebrities on private boats at sea, through windows, etc. until the victims go to court. I don't think journalists have any special permission or any special protection. I usually feel sorry for the celebrity.

I'm no lawyer, but I think most Americans would accept trespassing as unauthorized access to private property. In the US, a condo or building would qualify as private property, including the plot of land that the building sits on. The street in front of the building, or outside of the gate of the residential area would all be public property. The rules are the same for everybody, including journalists.

Requesting for an interview is a legitimate and reasonable request, and knocking on someone's door for an interview is probably okay (though can be considered harassment if done repeatedly). Someone forcing his/her way through after the request for interview is denied is definitely trespassing. The rules aren't any different for journalists.

In the US, initiating violence against trespassers probably depends on what the trespasser is doing. The usual course of action would be to call the police instead of hitting the trespasser. Yes, there are cases where people shoot trespassers with guns, but there needs to be a very serious need for self-defense, such as if the trespasser is a burglar with a handgun, and the owner feels his family's lives are in danger. Even then, if the owner kills the trespasser, there would still likely be a trial to determine whether the owner is guilty of homicide, as in: was shooting the burglar to death excessive or justified?

As for unauthorized images, you can immediately as the person to delete them. If they don't, you call the police. No need to wait for them to be published.

Just my 2 cents.

In Mr. Guo's case, I don't think trespassing is the key of the issue. It's actually a trivial event that happened at the wrong time and wrong place for Mr. Guo. Even if Mr. Guo's student hit somebody, it's hard to blame Mr. Guo for his student's fault. Trespassing somebody's property and violating their privacy is not correct anyway.

I think the media propaganda against Mr.s Guo is overblown and carried to the extreme.

It reminds me of the similar kind of campaign against the actress Ms. Zhangzhiyi.

In China, you are either completely right or completely wrong. When can the society accept an imperfect person?

Mr. Clinton committed adultery in his presidency, but he still survived and prospered as a president.

Normally a person has to be first asked by the owner to leave before they can be a wrongful act of trespassing.

It is "crosstalk".

In my home state, Oregon, we can legally shoot and kill anyone not authorized to be in our home. However, each state is different and I suspect that Oregon is something of an outlier.

I beleive that someone needs to be asked to leave unless there is a no solicitors sign, although it is assumes that the person will get to the door before being able to read that due to space and size of signage. If the person is asked to leave and does not, he is then tresspassing. I beleive a permanent statement (never come here again) is needed before a return visit is called trespassing. In the West we have a saying: "If you kill the burglar, make sure he falls inside." Meaning that if he falls inside the door, you have killed in self defense, but if he falls outside you are guilty of manslaughter at the least. This would indicate to me that while your yard is private property there is a line between a tresspasser and an unwanted visitor. Probably intent would be involved in making that call.

However, you cannot put anything in or on somone's mailbox as it is a felony. We actually had people threaten to sue us over a lost dog brochure we left. Jerks.

To clarify for zjemi: with journalists this becomes an issue of media law, which treats private and celebrity citizens as 2 different entities.

Generally for private citizens: their image cannot be used for financial gain. This means that it is legal for me to take your picture if you are in a public place and use it for myself. I can have it in my home or give a copy to a friend. I don't really know how this is affected by the internet. It seems that if it is an inoccous photo it is usually okay to post, but not if it has been altered or shows someone in a bad light, but it is being treated on a case by case basis. And we are getting stupid on how far we are taking that, but that's another matter.

If the private citizen is at an event deemed newsworthy, their image can be used for gain. If you get arrested, are at a political rally, etc., you have given up the rights to your image. These uses are often innoccous; one year I found a picture of myself in town central in the local phone book, and have been in the paper for parades and for art openings. If you are at a political rally, your image may be used.

With celebrities and politicians, it is pretty much fair game. This is based on the idea that they have chosen a public lifestyle, which is true. While it may be tasteless, the celebrity does not get to choose what is used, for example, Angelina Jolie cannot sue if a paprazzi catches her when picking her nose in public. This is sensible since, say looking at a president, he cannot repress unflattering photos of himself beating up his kid. (No president in mind here, Im' just trying to come up with an example.)