Man banned from Disney World for life.

[Lord Fantasius]

By the way, I love your explanation, eXo, but that's part of the "problem," we have to explain and justify why something is wrong instead of just saying, "It's not your property." Now we have "urban explorers" who think they are not trespassers but are doing "good" for society; umm, think I've heard before...to know right as wrong and wrong as right.

 

[Planogirl]

Trespassing is wrong, no doubt about that. But I question whether it really matters when a place is truly abandoned. I don't mean a place that might be restored or used for another purpose. I'm talking about a place that will simply be demolished. We (usually) know the difference.

Disney is not a bad guy at all. I just think that they're being awfully harsh in this case.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

Trespassing is wrong, no doubt about that. But I question whether it really matters when a place is truly abandoned. I don't mean a place that might be restored or used for another purpose. I'm talking about a place that will simply be demolished. We (usually) know the difference.

Disney is not a bad guy at all. I just think that they're being awfully harsh in this case.

In some points, but I'm not convinced banning someone from Disneyworld is really that harsh of a sentence. Haven't read anywhere in the Constitution that Disneyworld is an inalienable right. Doubt wether the trespasser's, er, urban explorer's, life would suffer unmitigated irreparable harm without a visit to the Magic Kingdom.

Up until a few years ago, Disney, Inc., claimed they had great plans for the RC area...though now, I'm afraid it will eventually just be absorbed into a DVC expansion. The big problem with cleaning up that area would be getting a federal environmental impact study. It used water directly from Bay Lake whose beaches were considered infested with that parasite. Yes, I realized RC was not closed because of the parasite, but I think the cleanup might be stalled by it. Also, until "they" decide what is going in there...and act upon it...it will probably stay in its shape until somebody gets hurt (whether it's an urban explorer, or just a simple trespasser). I'm afraid until that time, it will continue to be simply an eyesore.

 

[1adam12]

If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime

 

[Polydweller]

Trespassing is wrong, no doubt about that. But I question whether it really matters when a place is truly abandoned. I don't mean a place that might be restored or used for another purpose. I'm talking about a place that will simply be demolished. We (usually) know the difference.

Disney is not a bad guy at all. I just think that they're being awfully harsh in this case.

Not sure how you can say you know when a place is truly abandoned. As long as a property is owned by somebody it is their private property and others have no right to trespass. And that's the real and only issue, ownership of the property. The owner does not have to do anything with the property except maintain ownership. In Disney's case, they own all the land and it is private. Anyone not authorised to be there is trespassing.

Disney isn't being harsh. They have liability issues if someone enters an off limits area and rightly will take action. Banning from the property makes it clear that that person is not authorized and releaves Disney of liability for that person.

 

[eXo]

Trespassing is wrong, no doubt about that. But I question whether it really matters when a place is truly abandoned. I don't mean a place that might be restored or used for another purpose. I'm talking about a place that will simply be demolished. We (usually) know the difference.

Disney is not a bad guy at all. I just think that they're being awfully harsh in this case.

No matter "how abandoned" or not a place is, as polydweller stated, it is still private property. As far as whether or not it truly matters, you have to realize that if someone hurts them selves, the property owner can actually be held responsible. It is a legal liability to have people trespassing. And even if you personally choose to believe that some laws are worth ignoring, as I showed multiple examples of, it does graduate to theft, vandalism, and even arson if left unchecked. If Disney KNOWS someone is trespassing and doesn't go out of there way to stop it, then a person who hurts themselves can actually legally attempt to sue them and argue that, in Adam the Woo's case, he tweeted he would be there and so by not stopping him they are complicit in his injury. Sound crazy? People illegally crossing the border successfully sued the US government for getting cut on the barbed wire fence. The fence was modified to make it more difficult to happen again (at least near that section in El Paso).

And yes, I, nor anyone else, shouldn't have to explain how or why trespassing is wrong. But it's the only option when a person decides that breaking the law is harmless.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I DONT BELEIVE Disney is being at all harsh. The man had been repeatedly caught in places he was clearly not supposed to be in and was warned repeatedly not to go into areas not open to the public.

He in continuing to do this opens the door to copy cats and if anyone was hurt, Disney would be open to lawsuits.

Clearly the man is a adult, he should act like one. He choose not to and now he pays the price.

AKK

 

[Planogirl]

I respect property laws. I realize that my arguments are weak and I am also too quick to forgive at times.

 

[Lord Fantasius]

I respect property laws. I realize that my arguments are weak and I am also too quick to forgive at times.

Quickness to forgive is a very noble trait. But in some sense, it requires the one being forgiven to accept forgiveness for a transgression...which necessitates that he/she acknowledges they have violated something. It's why I bristle so quickly when things get re-defined to avoid accepting responsibility, and that's my struggle.

 

[Planogirl]

Quickness to forgive is a very noble trait. But in some sense, it requires the one being forgiven to accept forgiveness for a transgression...which necessitates that he/she acknowledges they have violated something. It's why I bristle so quickly when things get re-defined to avoid accepting responsibility, and that's my struggle.

I think that most of those who do actual urban exploration acknowledge that they have violated something. However thanks to them I've seen amazing photographs of historic places that no longer exist. It's hard for me to get upset about that. I guess that I struggle too.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

The reason I think banning for life is the least he should get is because he knew EXACTLY what he was doing, he knew it was illegal, he knew it was dangerous, he knew it could get him banned, and he did it anyway. Not only did he do it anyway, with impunity, he also bragged about it, published the fact that he did it, was unrepentant, and... this is the real kicker for me... he made money doing it.

Don't feel sorry for him. He was doing something illegal to get money and attention. I hope he is banned for life from every Disney owned property in the world. A message needs to be sent to those who do such illegal activities for profit. If he comes back on property, I hope he gets at least some jail time.

Calling these guys "urban explorers" is like calling bank robbers "money liberators."

 

[Planogirl]

Comparing these people to bank robbers is a bit ludicrous but to each their own.

 

[minniemouseforever]

Banned for life is a little harsh

Not really when you consider that Disney is all about preserving the magic.

 

[eXo]

Planogirl - I just watched one of Adam's videos where he went to Universal and snuck back into the, now demolished, section with the Tricertops. Apart from flipping switches and messing with stuff (and his inane chatter that nearly every youtube comment below asks him to knock off), he specifically states that he wished he had taken the "Feeding Times Chart" prop that was on the wall. If he is willing to openly state that he wished he would have taken something, then a guarantee you that he has taken other things in the past.

And I'm sorry, but there is nothing noble about "Urban Exploration". Every abandoned site I have ever been too is covered in graffiti, trash, and has been nearly stripped bare. Do we all wish that places like Disney and Universal did more to preserve the things they remove and/or document these areas a bit better for the super fans? Sure. Is it ok for Adam "the Woo" to take it upon himself to document these things while talking in childish voices? Nope.

As mentioned above - he made money off these videos. Worse, he mad "fans" off these videos. Fans acting like an immature clown who trespasses and regrets not stealing more.

Earlier I backed off making fun of his sense of humor as to not offend others, but after watching him again... yea, he is downright annoying.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

Comparing these people to bank robbers is a bit ludicrous but to each their own.

I wasn't saying his crime was equivalent to bank robbery. I was using a word play to show how ridiculous is the use of the term "urban explorer" to try and make a stupid, dangerous, and criminal activity seem noble. He wants to appear noble while he commits crime to make money. Many criminals do.

 

[JoWiJo]

I'm not sure why he uses the term, but I believe it comes from still photography to describe the subject matter, not to justify the activity or make it seem noble. There is an interest in urban decay. There is nothing wrong with photographing it (or taking videos). But there can be a problem in how it's done. Adam clearly steps across that particular line in a few of his videos. In others, he leaps across it.

I first heard of Adam about two weeks before all this came down. I didn't bother with his videos until I heard about his banishment, and my curiosity got the better of me. It's a real head-scratcher, but his videos can be simultaneously fascinating and boring.

I don't know about what he does now, but in his older videos he does more than explore abandoned places. He explores places that had not really been abandoned (unoccupied =/= abandoned). And he, and his pals, intentionally have gone backstage at Disney with a catch-me-if-you-can mentality, fully aware of the potential consequences. He gambled and lost.

 

[Planogirl]

I realize that this is against the law and I'm normally one who follows the law to an excess. However I have seen a lot of photography and videos from urban explorers and much of it truly fascinates me. Plus a lot of those beautiful places are gone now. Should I look at some of this if they are breaking the law? Perhaps not but I do and I won't deny it.

Adam is one who has made some great stuff and yes, crossed the line. Have I enjoyed some of his videos though? I certainly have. Is a lifetime ban too harsh? I still think that it is. YMMV.

 

[speavy3]

I think banning is appropriate. Part of the magic of Disney is how their "face" is represented. You aren't meant to see all of the behind the scenes. That kills the magic. His videos going back in restricted areas take away from the picture that Disney works so hard to create. Appropriate punishment for the crime imo

 

[OwlMomx3]

He was asking for it. He got what he deserved.

 

[jeepinit]

Yeah what was he thinking