A woman’s report of a man taking pictures of her child inside a Montgomery County Starbucks has sparked a police investigation.
The woman, who did not want to be identified, said she was inside the Starbucks in East Norriton Township Tuesday when she spotted a man taking pictures of her child. The woman spoke to a Starbucks employee about it but was told they couldn’t ask the man to leave, according to Natalie Mittica, who shared the woman’s Facebook post about the incident.
“The barista said, ‘I’m sorry, he’s been here all week doing this but we can’t ask him to leave,’” Mittica said.
. . .
NBC10 ... spoke to a woman inside the East Norriton Starbucks who identified herself as a district manager. The woman said we couldn’t record inside the store due to the privacy of the customers. When asked why they didn’t object to a man taking pictures of a child without the mother’s consent, the woman had no comment.
What the hell has happened to parents in America, that they allow themselves and their children to be treated in this manner? When you were growing up, if any stranger had begun taking unwanted, intrusive pictures of you, your father would have fed him his own camera, in pieces, through any and every available orifice. Your mother would not have been quite so violent, but she would have called the cops - and they would have taken the man down to the station and had a long talk with him, making it clear that any repetition would have very nasty consequences. The law might, or might not, have been a factor in the nasty consequences.
I really don't care what the law says about someone's right to photograph in public. They will give my family the right of privacy that the Supreme Court insists we have, whether or not local laws incorporate it. If they don't, I'll make them. It's as simple as that. If anyone wants to argue about it, on free speech or any other grounds, I'll have two simultaneous responses.
"It's for the chiiiiiiillll-dren!"
"If I can't use the right to privacy to protect my family against unwanted intrusion, then the Supreme Court - and the state - can't use the right to privacy to protect abortion and abortion providers."