I find it pretty offensive on alot of levels, The designers although short sighted did not design the stairs to look at your clunge... the fact she say "MEN designed it" is pretty sexist on her part nd the fact that theres a security guard at the bottom telling these women not to go up the stair due to the clothes they are wearing is sexualising it even more. To keep their modesty they have to use a lift or if they dont care and go up the stairs they come across as "I dont care I WANT them to look"

Stupid people, stupid stairs, stupid story

Aw - how cute. What is she going to do next? Start writing it on a chalkboard? Maybe she and Beck could start being chalkboard buddies. What a load of total claptrap masquerading as 'serious analysis'. I'm getting tired of listening to people who think that biased infotainers like Maddow, Beck, Schultz and all the rest any credibility.

It's bullcrap. All of it. For example, Maddow uses pictures of a bunch of guys in Kabul and then insults completely unrelated security guards in Wisconsin. I didn't like the service I got at a Pizza Hut in Albaquerque once, but that doesn't mean the employees of the Pizza Hut where I live are scumbags. What she's doing utterly dismisses her entire screed as anything but propoganda of the lowest sort.

Anyone who thinks Maddow is anything but a junkyard mutt on the Democrat party chain is addled. Anyone that thinks she has a 'point' in this particular piece of total tripe has to have been pithed. Maddow is as unhinged and full of crap as Beck ever has been.

the security guards/ cops always look set up to me

I'm not aware of any laws broken here, but I would not be happy if I employed those security guards. They shouldn't be publicizing security footage and they should have had someone check on her when she fell instead of just laughing at her stupidity. Someone could have gotten hurt pretty bad from a faceplant like that.

>> ^dag:

Is the shopping centre not responsible for the unlawful use of its equipment by its employees?


First, it's "center" not "centre". You may live in Australia, but you were born and raised here, so stop with the European "pinkies out" bullshit.

Second, yes, the mall is responsible for unlawful use of its equipment by its employees. I think it falls under Respondeat Superior, but I do believe this responsibility is limited. Aside from disciplining or firing the security guards who leaked the tape, I cannot see any further obligations necessary from the mall. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

I'd suspect it works kind of like this. You can't hold McDonald's liable if some lunatic employee came into work and decided to shoot the place up. But if he sold a chicken sandwich as a burger and refused to fix the problem, then that would be different a violation of the contract between customer and McDonald's therefore McDonald's would be liable to fix it (redress). In the case of the mall security guard, they stole company property and published it on the web, and the mall has a reasonable obligation to fire or reprimand the employee and redress any damages which are none in this case. Zero. No rights were not infringed. There was no broken contracts, no damages, nothing.

Pinkies out.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Is the shopping centre not responsible for the unlawful use of its equipment by its employees? >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dag:
What gives them the right to publish her personage to the world?. TV appearances require signed releases by the participants and this should too. Presumably, the uploader is also profiting through YouTube ad revenue. The security officers were employed, doing their duties as representatives of the mall. I think she has a case against the Shopping Center.
Sure, she's a bit of an idiot- but this is not fair.

Not sure that answers the damages or rights violation question, but that's a good point you brought up about the signed releases for TV appearances. Releases are for companies/people who stand to make a profit from a production. It removes financial liability if the 'talent' comes back later laying claim to a percentage of the profits earned from sales or whatever. I'm not sure if this is law or not, but it has been set as precedence in most entertainment industries (film, tv, advertising, modeling, etc.) so that's as good as law as far as I know.
Conversely, most videos uploaded to YT aren't meant to make profit and are considered protected under free speech from government recourse I believe (as long as they don't violate a right or cause damage to another person). However, If the uploader is making ad revenue off the video, then she has a legitimate claim to some of that money if there wasn't a contract (aka the release). She probably could get that instance of the video pulled from YT, too.
But she has no case against the shopping center. How can she? They probably reprimanded or fired the security guards already, so what else are they obligated to do? I feel like you're just sympathetic to her plight, which is admirable, but this is really a case where reason should win over emotion, I think.

>> ^dag:

What gives them the right to publish her personage to the world?. TV appearances require signed releases by the participants and this should too. Presumably, the uploader is also profiting through YouTube ad revenue. The security officers were employed, doing their duties as representatives of the mall. I think she has a case against the Shopping Center.
Sure, she's a bit of an idiot- but this is not fair.


Not sure that answers the damages or rights violation question, but that's a good point you brought up about the signed releases for TV appearances. Releases are for companies/people who stand to make a profit from a production. It removes financial liability if the 'talent' comes back later laying claim to a percentage of the profits earned from sales or whatever. I'm not sure if this is law or not, but it has been set as precedence in most entertainment industries (film, tv, advertising, modeling, etc.) so that's as good as law as far as I know.

Conversely, most videos uploaded to YT aren't meant to make profit and are considered protected under free speech from government recourse I believe (as long as they don't violate a right or cause damage to another person). However, If the uploader is making ad revenue off the video, then she has a legitimate claim to some of that money if there wasn't a contract (aka the release). She probably could get that instance of the video pulled from YT, too.

But she has no case against the shopping center. How can she? They probably reprimanded or fired the security guards already, so what else are they obligated to do? I feel like you're just sympathetic to her plight, which is admirable, but this is really a case where reason should win over emotion, I think.

fake security guard is fake

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Did you see the post Blank had where the guy just flat out says we are violating your 4th amendments rights...now sit down and shut up....I might be paraphrasing a bit.

Is blankfist part of the national media?

As for the rest, this is the other half of why I'm annoyed about the way the right operates, even when on the surface they agree with us. They're not satisfied to join onto a campaign that says "we want the TSA to scale back what they do", instead you've always got to make this into an excuse for extracting some sort of pound of government flesh.

Instead of focusing on the actual problem (overbearing security requirements on flights), the libertarian voices demand that we privatize the TSA (read: hire for-profit companies to conduct the gropings and porno scans at the TSA's behest) as if that's a solution to the issue. Republicans want that too, but they also want the gropings and porno scanners to say, they just want to make sure white people don't have to suffer them use racial profiling to determine who gets singled out for these invasive measures.

The more consistent (but even less reasonable) libertarians say they'll only sign on if what we aim for is abolishing the TSA entirely, and while we're at it the DHS too.

Throughout, all the various right-wing groups try to pretend like somehow this was originally a Democratic idea, and that the liberal grassroots were and are all for it.

The sad thing is, most if not all liberals are on the "small government" side of this argument. They want less onerous restrictions on airline security, period. I think plenty of them would be fine with turning over the actual hiring of security guards and purchase of scanners to the airlines, and leave the TSA as more of a regulatory agency than an actual paramilitary organization. Most see this whole process as an erosion of their civil rights.

Thing is, does the right want to tap into that and actually build a coalition that could do something about it? Or are they going to insist that this is all about conservative heroes fighting to defeat liberal villains, and thus guarantee that nothing changes?

so yes, yes, yes this is wrong, this is evil, police state, fascism, violation of civil liberties, waste of time and money, etc etc etc. yes, i agree.

but as far the nudey scanners go; i don't like them for all the reason above. but it's not really being seen gray-blurry-naked by a trumped up security guard that bothers me so much. I did CT scans for 8 years, night after night, and the first image taken in a CT scan is called a "scout" or a "topograph" (so we can line up where we will start and end the actual scan), and it's essentially the same image these machines will produce, a low dose backscatter image. There is nothing at all arousing or interesting about these blurs of outlines of naked-under-their-clothes bodies. Sure, the first one you ever see may be fascinating, but not the 300th. I am almost certain that all they're looking at after the first hundred bodies they scan are oddly shaped or shiny metal objects. grey blurry people just aren't that interesting in aggregate.


oh also, they thought CT scanners were only emitting a fraction of the radiation that they actually emit until just a few years ago.. CT scanners are run/maintained/calibrated by people who went to college (for several years) specifically to learn essentially nothing but how to run machines that emit radiation and shoot it at peoples body to take an image. and all the ethics/technology/troubleshooting/caution/physics/risks/common sense that goes along with it. .... they are not run/maintained/calibrated by security guards.

also, how much training are the various people looking at these devices going to be given in how to recognize the hundreds of different things (sometimes extrememly sensitive and embarrassing things) people can have implanted in their bodies. it took me several years of experience before i got very skilled in judging things like how close to the surface of the skin is given artifact, is this inside their bodies or out of the body, wtf is this thing and why the fuck it inside that mans balls/ladies vagina....etc etc. i feel like a lot of people are going to be subjected to humiliating strip searches because the people inspecting these images don't have a medical education and are looking for danger.

the wtf is strong with this video, as with many things, like when you have a dream that you're riding on a horse then the horse dissolves into a shopping cart and you're in wall-mart now trying to move that cart along as far as you can away from the security guards to get to an exit

>> ^deathcow:

Personally, I think this guy can promote whatever he wants to. Just keep it out of my state fair!!! I'm there for fun. Thanks to this looney a bunch of kids get to see a protester taken down at a fun event. Think ahead. Choose the correct platform.


Dunno, doesn't the fact that anyone is welcome to a state fair mean that anyone's crazy ideas are as well? Having people wondering around practicing free speech in a way that is annoying shouldn't have an impact on his ability to practice it. Freedom causes a lot of unpleasantness, like people cursing in front of your kids or something, but we have to put up with those small inconveniences in the name of a greater virtue than comfort.

It was hard for me to understand, were those policemen or just security guards. Why was he touched, was he under arrest?

kekekekekekekeohshithewalledin.




See, if he'd thrown a couple of banelings in with the security guard then maybe he could have broken in.

WTF Did I just watch?

That had to be one of the strangest videos ever in Videosift.
So many questions.... so many!

Is chicken that expensive in Russia?
Who the fuck is gonna eat that chicken afterwards?
Were those guys with the signs trying to distract the security guards?
What did the signs say?
Why did the signs look like they had been written in shit??
Why??
WHYYYYYYYYYYY?

Could somebody explain to me what is the purpose of a security guard other than being the bitch of the private sector?