Please notice my use of the term "general" and "normally" (misspelled) in my response with regard to retail spaces. As for the terms of the ADA, retail spaces may be considered a "public accommodation", but that definition varies from state to state and law to law. Per many statutes retail spaces are not considered as such. I didn't say it was universal. My point holds... the notion of the "public accommodation" isn't the same as a "public space". All "public accommodations" are "public spaces", but not all "public spaces" are "public accommodations".
We can argue until the cows come home, but as it stands, each state does have its own separate laws and a private person being subject to ridicule--will not necessarily pass muster.
It's not really a matter of debating, it's a matter of the case law. If you know of a member of the general public that has successfully sued a publication for their use of an unaltered photo taken in the public that pokes fun at them that didn't involve something like a "wardrobe malfunction", a misrepresentation, or defamation in recent years, I'm all eyes.
Let's assume that they post a photo of a guy wearing a pink leotard on the web site and the guy decides to sue the web site for humiliation of a non-newsworthy person. During the lawsuit the guy takes the stand, and I envision this exchange would likely take place:
Defendant's Lawyer: Mr. Pink, is that actually you in the photo?
Mr. Pink: Yes.
Lawyer: Was it your idea to wear the leotard?
Mr. Pink: Yes. I wear it occasionally.
Lawyer: Were you on the way to a costume party and my client incorrectly made it appear that this was normal attire for you?
Pink: No.
Lawyer: Do you think it is embarrassing to shop at Wal-mart while wearing a pink leotard?
Mr. Pink: No.
Lawyer: Your lawsuit claims that my client posting your photo to his web site caused you extreme mental anguish and embarrassment, but can you explain for us why you think walking through a store full of customers in that outfit is not embarrassing, but someone publishing a photo of you doing so is unbearably so.
Mr. Pink:........
A child star having once had celebrity status, is not necessarily in the same category as a woman who overdid it a litle with liquid eyeliner.
Correct, but ironically in the same case the court also said that one of the reasons that they found for the magazine was that their descriptions of things like the former child math-wiz's odd manner of public dress as an adult was presented in a truthful manner.
In fact, across several photography boards, they mention subjects who are just in the background as opposed to being featured. Being part of the crowd--not an issue. Featured as a focal point in a photograph--it could be an issue.
Note, I say "could"--not that it "is" without question.
Likely if any of these individuals knew they were on this website, they likely could request to have their photo taken down and reasonably expect to be accomodated.
You are correct that nothing is etched in stone and judges may decide to change precedent and there's always an "if", "could", or a "maybe", but I'm not aware of cases of these fears coming to pass in court decisions.
You are probably right that if someone asked to have their photo removed from the site that the operators would likely oblige them out of courtesy, but I doubt that if they refused they would have any legal ramifications. I'm sure that people have probably already tried to shut them down, Wal-mart themselves at the very least. You can't be legally faint of heart to run a site like that one.
Photos of cars and goats and people with faces concealed--would have a bit more of a challenged. So pink shorts dude, dude with boxers fully exposed and butt crack shots--I'm not so sure they'd have much luck.
You're correct... Another standard for invasion of privacy is whether the general public could readily identify the person in the photo as being you instead of someone else. If a judge / jury can't make such a determination, the case likely stops there.
I personally do not find the website a violation of the right to privacy. But that is based on my knowledge from when I graduated from a school of journalism and communications many moons ago. But that was before the internet exploded and took a life of its own. (back when they had no google and searching for information on the internet was cruel and unusual punishment.)
I think you're assessment is correct. I think you'll find that as the "old" media world fades, most of the legal precepts will move over to the "new media" of the Internet.
) and thought they could be hurtful and some were just "OMG I can't belive someone's in public like that!" (the swastika, etc.
) I did find it to be funny overall, especially the truck with the storm window and or the goats! - I mean how funny are those! 
underwear is looking for attention.
