So, OK basically? Indecent things are allowed. You can criticize them, of course, but they are still allowed.

People have the right to write non-nice things about you (as long as it's not libel). They can write that they don't like you for whatever reason, or they can write that they get off thinking about you. There's freedom of expression to do stupid, non-nice and indecent shit.

What is that expression? Something like “if your best defence of something is that it isn’t against the law you have already lost”

If that is the case, it means that the people who attack you have already lost as well.

what?

No one is saying it's not legal. Most people here understand what libel is and what freedom of expression is.

The point is that it's still a bit weird, creepy and unpleasant. This man can continue doing it, and I can continue thinking he's quite damaged.

> The point is that it's still a bit weird, creepy and unpleasant. This man can continue doing it, and I can continue thinking he's quite damaged.

That's alright. I'm pretty much indifferent to the whole thing, but I still enjoyed the interview. Notice that the man may be "quite damaged", but still the first thing that he does is ask the interviewer if she was offended by her public photos being there, and offering to delete them.

He didn’t offer to delete them. He offered “not to do it again.” Which means she is stuck.

The fact that the asking bit comes after the pictures have already been repurposed is the entire point. If he would have asked beforehand and gotten permission no one would care.

Enjoying the interview is utterly orthogonal to the point you originally made.

> "ask the interviewer if she was offended by her public photos being there, and offering to delete them."

You may see that as being polite, I see that as just another creepy power play, where he's now implying he has control over her pics.