>I find this view to be wildly dramatic. As if the right to street photography is the only thing stopping society from sliding into fascism. Give me a break.

This is not what I was saying. I was talking about freedom of the artist in general and how it is not respected in street photography in particular.
Street photography is just an example where people can put own little discomfort and feelings above principles designed to keep society free.

Freedom of speech and many other things could make us uncomfortable but not all of them should be taken more seriously than values protecting freedom. In a society with freedom of speech we are not trying to avoid discomfort we are intentionally ignore certain discomfort for the sake of a greater good: discuss freely serious issues and see the different perspective on things provided by artists of all kinds. Some serious issues cannot be discussed without hurting some feelings and this is by design. Certain discomfort is accepted for the sake of freedom. On the other hand person can learn that doesn't have to hurt own feelings.

If you explore how some societies ended up in totalitarianism you see the common pattern that they are happy to accept laws protecting some discomfort without thinking about consequences and those consequences come faster then they expect. Unfortunately those consequences deliver much more discomforts then the first laws were trying to avoid.

>Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom

I have no interest to paint you anyhow. My interest is the point of view you describe at the moment and I am trying to explain where such view leads in a long run.

When you say "But I have a huge problem with that and think it shouldn't be allowed." it is indeed shows that the view you possibly hold at the moment leads to readiness to trample at least on freedom of photographer. I do not know the details of the story but women doesn't have to be offended by photography by the way and some women are even proud and happy in such situations and can take it with smile. I mean it is a decision of a person how to take it isn't it?

Here is another anecdote from my personal experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547
and another one when I was making video of bush: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707
and I have many more stories like that ...

>I guess that makes me a fascist. Like how dare I think that guy should have to ask permission.

The problem here with the word "should". If you use it it means you are ready to trample over freedom of photographer if I am not mistaken here?

>And surely if he wasn't allowed to do that it would mean the absolute end of freedom in the world. Those baby photos are critical to maintain our rights.

This statement is manipulative. I was not talking about particular photos I was talking about principle of readiness to step over freedom of an artist and where it leads. As I was saying above : Street photography is just an example where people can put own little discomfort and feelings above principles designed to keep society free.

>Get outta here.

I do not think I am willing to satisfy your feeling here because people with the view you've described need learn to respect freedom of artists and see the benefit for the society in doing so.

And together with "Get outta here." you are saying: " Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom ..."

I am not sure how to properly interpret that. But I guess people who are ready to step over freedom of photographer to avoid own feeling of discomfort are not very active in protecting feelings of photographers from discomfort for merely doing their job.

I just hope you can learn the other side from the anecdote I've provided to see the whole picture.