Personality rights

Personality rights and image rights are censorship that prevents harmfully behaving people from being held accountable.

Like copyrights, "personality rights" and "image rights", also known as "rights to ones own image" and "rights to ones own likeness", are worded as "rights" that make them seem beneficial to the individual. In reality, they take away much more than they give. For example, they prevent cheating women and misbehaving teachers and other authority figures from being exposed.

Video cameras are among the most effective tools for exposing corruption. This is why their use had to be restricted by law and people had to be fooled into embracing censorship under the blanket of "personality rights".

"Personality rights" also prevent the preservation of historical events. By today's standards, most photographs ever taken in public violated someone's personality rights, but it never mattered.

This is a photograph from the 1960s (source). By today's standards, these people were all "violated".

Another bunch of "violated" people. (source)

Obviously, you can't leverage "personality rights" against your superiors. The state will still happily surveil you through their CCTV cameras and record all your calls without your consent. The state wants surveillance to be outgoing only.

"Personality rights" protect bad actors.

So-called "personality rights" prevent bad actors from being held to account.

For example, some teachers behave badly to their students, for example by shouting and humiliating students, throwing chalk at students, or physically forcing a student out of the class room after harmless drinking of water. People outside the classroom such as parents and the school principal might not believe students that describe how their teachers behaved.

So-called "personality rights" prevent other students from picking up their smartphone video cameras and filming the teacher and then publishing the video online with the real name of the teacher. Therefore, teachers don't have to fear consequences while misbehaving towards students. Their abuses stay in the dark. If it wasn't filmed, it's like it didn't happen.

One would say "this is wrong because it would hurt the reputation of the teacher". In fact, German law specifically cites protecting individuals' reputations as a reason for its personality rights. However, people who misuse their positions of authority deserve having their reputation damaged. The whole point of a reputation is knowing whether you can trust someone. Therefore, school teachers who think their bad behaviour is justified shouldn't mind having that behaviour on public record. After all, they carry a responsibility while brainwashing educating children of the next generation and need to be held to a high standard.

In places where "personality rights" are weaker or culturally not accepted, misbehaving teachers can be exposed.

My Teacher Bullied Me. I REVENGED!

"Personality rights" can also prevent people who behave badly in public (examples:) from being exposed online. Personality rights were also leveraged by speedrun cheater Billy Mitchell and reaction video maker Suzy Lu to punish critics. Mitchell attacked Benjamin Smith (who ran the YouTube channel "Apollo Legend") for using video and audio recordings from a public event he attended to expose his corruption, and competing Pac-Man player David W. Race for recording telephone calls he participated in. To David Race's luck, he lives in a US state where recording phone calls without the other participant's consent is legal. Otherwise, it would have been more difficult for him to expose Mitchell's corruption. Mitchell also sued Cartoon Network for using his likeness to make fun of his desire to have the highest score in arcade games, albeit unsuccessfully. Suzy Lu took down videos criticizing her, for having her face appear in them.

Personality rights enable paternity fraud.

The most effective way to thwart paternity fraud is to publicly expose unloyal cheating women in the act using photographs of her with the man she cheated with, which would give her the well deserved reputation of a cheater to make other men think twice before getting together with the cheater. However, in some places, personality rights enable paternity fraud by preventing cheating women from being exposed.

While women are free to slander men as rapists publicly and will be automatically believed, men are not allowed to expose women. In places where "personality rights" are weaker or culturally not accepted, cheating women can be exposed.

How the media fooled Germans into happily accepting censorship

While Americans understand the importance of being able to hold their public government workers accountable using video cameras, Germans got fooled into happily accepting censorship under the blanket of "personality rights" and "rights to ones own image".

So how did it all start?

People in authority grew sick of being held accountable for their public actions by plebians and their video cameras, so in April 2016, the police department of Hagen kickstarted a campaign to smear those who film authority people such as police officers as so-called "gawkers" and "sensationalists", through a Facebook post titled "Schämt euch, ihr Gaffer vom Hauptbahnhof", which traslates into "Shame on you, you gawkers from the train station!"

In the days following the post, major German news outlets magically picked up on it and publicized it.

• Hagen: „Schämt euch, ihr Gaffer“ – RP Online
• Hagener Polizei schimpft über Schaulustige – N-TV
• Hier stören Hunderte Gaffer eine Rettung - Polizei: "Schämt Euch!" – TAZ
• "Schämt Euch, ihr Gaffer vom Hauptbahnhof!" – Bayern3
• "Schämt Euch!": Polizei schimpft bei Facebook über Gaffer – Augsburger Allgemeine
• Polizei schimpft bei Facebook über Gaffer: „Schämt Euch!“ – Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung

The comments on the Facebook post are full of sheeple people agreeing that officers should be protected by so-called "personality rights" while performing a public service, especially from a position of authority. These commenters didn't consider the possibility of officers misusing their powers, for example by forcing people to suffocate themselves wear masks or get poisoned vaccinated. In fact, so-called "gawkers" and "sensationalists" are the only reason the public knows that police in some countries forcibly poisoned vaccinated inhabitants.

One can safely assume that all disagreeing comments were quietly swept under the rug.

It is the same thing that happened four years after that during the plandemic:

In today's culture of copy-and-paste journalism, it is common for hundreds of unrelated outlets to feature the exact same reports. This is not the result of laziness. This is by design.

When we see identical headlines across seemingly unrelated platforms, the logical mind concludes "well then, it must be true".

The illusion that numerous news sources have arrived at the same conclusion gives us confidence to share the chosen narrative.

And just like that, we become the unwitting pushers of propaganda.

(From "Plandemic 2 | INDOCTORNATION", at 15:53.)

But that wasn't enough yet. In late 2017, the state-owned bank sponsored the production of an emotionally fueled propaganda film titled "Schaulustige - Sei kein Gaffer" ("sensationalists - don't be a gawker"). Besides the million views on YouTube, the film was broadcast on mainstream television. The film implies that any harmless distant filming of crash sites will escalate to people stepping on the crash site and entering fire trucks to take pictures with the helmets left behind by the firefighters.

The propaganda movie shifted the culture in a way that makes filming officers in public less culturally accepted anywhere, not only on crash sites. This way, the state ensures that surveillance goes only one way: From the state to the inhabitants. In other words, the state takes great pleasure in surveilling its people, but it doesn't like being surveilled itself.

The propaganda also worked by applying the same labels of "gawkers" and "sensationalists" to people of two distinct groups, both people who photograph and film crash sites from a safe distance and people who physically obstruct rescue personnel to look at the crash site with or without using a camera, even though they do not overlap.

In another heavily emotionalized state-sponsored propaganda movie from 2022 titled „Und ihr schaut zu“ ("And you watch"), a mother whose daughter died after being hit by a car gets angry at a businessman pedestrian for having obstructed rescue workers. He obstructed rescue workers without using a camera, and his intention was to get to work, not to watch, much less film the crash site. The mother was not present at the accident site, but the scene was filmed and published online by "gawkers" and "sensationalists", after which the mother begged for the videos to be deleted. Ironically, the way she learned in the first place that the obstruction took place was through videos recorded by the "gawkers" she hated so much - the same videos she so desperately wanted gone ended up supporting her case. To maximize the sympathy points, a young woman was chosen for the role of the crash victim in the movie. This way, the movie takes advantage of the gender sympathy gap.

In 2021, the new law specifically punishing the photography and filming of crash sites came into effect, allegedly to protect dead people. The law is worded in a way that implies it only applies to crash sites with dead people. Given that dead people usually exist on a crash site, this effectively outlaws photographing or filming near any crash sites. As if dead people care in the slightest about appearing on photographs.

The state has accomplished its wet dream of one-way surveillance.

Personality rights prevent accountability of the press.

In a free country, everyone would be able to report on the happenings independently, since the public deserves to know whether police and rescue personnel do their work properly, and also whether the established mainstream media reports on it accurately.

However, independent reporters and their video cameras threaten the monopoly that the established media has on reporting, therefore the established media attacks independent journalists using labels such as "wannabe journalists" and "wannabe reporters" to defend their monopoly on reporting to ensure that the public sees the world through their lens only.

When the press reports on major accidents and public riots, personality rights prevent people from independently documenting the event, so the public only receives the point of view of the state-controlled established media.

In Germany, reporters need a state-issued "press pass" ("Presseausweis") in order to be able to report on accident sites, and a broadcasting license ("Rundfunklizenz") in order to be able to live broadcast to more than 500 people anywhere, including on online platforms like YouTube and Twitch. Such licenses are expensive to acquire and will not be granted in the first place to people who report in a way the elites don't like. This way, the state has secured complete control over what can appear on television.

Reputation management

The state cares about the reputation of the country, not about individual crash victims.

To the law-writing bureaucrats in their skyscraper offices, the average person is as little relevant as an ant. A speck in the eye. "The dignity of the crash victims" is nothing but an afterthought, if any thought at all. However, if everyone was able to post videos of crash sites and riots with injured people online, it would hurt the reputation of a country as a "safe country". Therefore, the state had to put an end to it and convince everyone that doing so is bad, bad "sensationalism" and "gawking".

Personality rights protect harmful corporations.

Personality rights prevent manufacturers of unsafe vehicles from being exposed.

Say there was a car manufacturer whose cars frequently caught on fire. Personality rights prevent people from documenting these fires using their video cameras, so knowledge about the unsafety of certain cars stays in darkness.

The propaganda media says that "gawking kills". In reality, lack thereof kills.

Personality rights misplace blame.

Video recordings of public disasters are effective at proving that, for example, one did not arrive too late at a place (such as work) as a result of ones own laziness, but due to incidents outside ones control. The lack of a video recording makes it appear as an excuse without proof.

Personality rights destroy history.

It used to be out of question that public disasters must be preserved on video. For example, the video recording of Ethiopian Airlines flight 961 crashing near the Comoros islands on the 23rd of November, 1996, is an important piece of history. The person who caught it on camera is considered a hero and lucky to have been at the right place at the right time.

Ethiopian-Airlines-Flight 961 crash 1996

But one day, authorities suddenly decided that those who film public disasters are crazy "gawkers" and "sensationalists", and they pushed this idea through the propaganda media they control.

See also

• Police brutality
• DMCA