A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Photographing children



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #511  
Old April 7th 05, 06:14 PM
Jer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Jer" wrote:

Well, what I need to do is to being mollified,
go ahead and start a fight, force it into the
courts, get a news hound interested so I can get my name in the lights,
thereby providing
but one more example of my constitutional
rights under attack by someone that desperately
needs to know about them All of them.




Well, since I wasn't able to find any great number of cases (at least not
described on the internet), it appears photographers being unfairly stopped
or arrested by police is relatively rare. It does happen, as the links show.
And, if one believes the anecdotal stories, it may be happening more often
today.

Interestingly, this appears to be a greater problem in the UK. While I
didn't actually count while I was searching, it seems there were ten cases
in the UK for every one I could find here in the USA.

Stewart




One of the big (and significant) differences between the U.K. and the
U.S. is the U.S. has a constitution which explicitly defines what a
citizen's "rights" are. To be completely correct, the word is
"inalienable", which according to my pedant, means these rights are not
transferrable to another, which means they cannot by usurped by law.
Now, history has shown that the U.S. courts will refuse to uphold one's
access to a "right" if one doesn't care enough to complain when a
"right" has been violated. I complain because people have been put in
the ground trying to protect these rights, and I, for one, will NOT
allow the memory and respect of those before me to be dashed upon the
uncaring rocks of todays' society.

Now, this is not to say I don't think other people's issues aren't
important - they certainly are - but they also need to realize there are
constitutional issues that sway over their personal sensibilities as to
whether someone is snapping a shutter at someone elses visible panty
line. I'll also go on record right here and now by saying that I think
anyone that abuses a child deserves a properly tied noose around their
scrawny neck in the town square at sundown. The courts decide what is
and isn't abuse - not me, not them, nobody but a judge and jury. I'm
intimately familiar with what my rights are, I wish everyone was. I'll
defend my rights from any assult regardless of who assaults them in
three ways - hard, fast, and repeatedly - no exceptions. Anybody who
wants to be buried in legalese and related paperwork for the next ten
years is welcome to bring it on cuz I'm your guy, and I've got a ton of
money. IOW, don't fxck with me cuz I'll fxck back in ways one cannot
imagine. If one is concerned about political incorrectness when they
meet me, then hang on to your visible panty line when you meet my
attorney, cupcake, cuz the ride gets a bit rough tomorrow. Myself and
my attorney get along rather well - we both firmly believe in a
scortched earth policy where the defense of my rights are concerned.
Yes, I'm the guy your attorney warned you about, and for all the right
reasons.

One other thing... I work best in the background, and I suspect a lot of
photographers faced with these issues don't want a lot of publicity
surrounding them when they're trying to work. I don't argue with that,
that's their call. As a consequence, I suspect a lot of these issues
don't get a lot of ink on them, but that doesn't mean they don't happen,
it only means we're not aware of the event.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
  #512  
Old April 7th 05, 06:26 PM
Jeremy Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dwight Stewart wrote:

Well, since I wasn't able to find any great number of cases (at least not
described on the internet), it appears photographers being unfairly stopped
or arrested by police is relatively rare. It does happen, as the links show.
And, if one believes the anecdotal stories, it may be happening more often
today.


Why would they be described on the internet as a matter of course? The
incidents rarely result in arrest; even while they're harassing you,
they know they have nothing on you. So the only way the story would
"get out" is if the victim goes and tells people about it.

--
Jeremy |
  #513  
Old April 7th 05, 06:26 PM
Jeremy Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dwight Stewart wrote:

Well, since I wasn't able to find any great number of cases (at least not
described on the internet), it appears photographers being unfairly stopped
or arrested by police is relatively rare. It does happen, as the links show.
And, if one believes the anecdotal stories, it may be happening more often
today.


Why would they be described on the internet as a matter of course? The
incidents rarely result in arrest; even while they're harassing you,
they know they have nothing on you. So the only way the story would
"get out" is if the victim goes and tells people about it.

--
Jeremy |
  #514  
Old April 7th 05, 06:44 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 06:07:05 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:


"Jer" wrote:
Well, what I need to do is to being mollified,
go ahead and start a fight, force it into the
courts, get a news hound interested so I can get my name in the lights,
thereby providing
but one more example of my constitutional
rights under attack by someone that desperately
needs to know about them All of them.



Well, since I wasn't able to find any great number of cases (at least not
described on the internet), it appears photographers being unfairly stopped
or arrested by police is relatively rare. It does happen, as the links show.
And, if one believes the anecdotal stories, it may be happening more often
today.

Interestingly, this appears to be a greater problem in the UK. While I
didn't actually count while I was searching, it seems there were ten cases
in the UK for every one I could find here in the USA.

Stewart


That's to be expected; the UK as an Official Secrets Act, which, AIUI,
basically says, if we (the gov't) didn't give you the right to see it,
listen to it, record it, or know about it, if you do any of those
things, it's illegal.
In the US, it's basically the opposite of that; it's illegal if they
tell you it is. If they don't tell you it's illegal, it isn't.
Basically.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #515  
Old April 7th 05, 06:44 PM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 06:07:05 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:


"Jer" wrote:
Well, what I need to do is to being mollified,
go ahead and start a fight, force it into the
courts, get a news hound interested so I can get my name in the lights,
thereby providing
but one more example of my constitutional
rights under attack by someone that desperately
needs to know about them All of them.



Well, since I wasn't able to find any great number of cases (at least not
described on the internet), it appears photographers being unfairly stopped
or arrested by police is relatively rare. It does happen, as the links show.
And, if one believes the anecdotal stories, it may be happening more often
today.

Interestingly, this appears to be a greater problem in the UK. While I
didn't actually count while I was searching, it seems there were ten cases
in the UK for every one I could find here in the USA.

Stewart


That's to be expected; the UK as an Official Secrets Act, which, AIUI,
basically says, if we (the gov't) didn't give you the right to see it,
listen to it, record it, or know about it, if you do any of those
things, it's illegal.
In the US, it's basically the opposite of that; it's illegal if they
tell you it is. If they don't tell you it's illegal, it isn't.
Basically.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #516  
Old April 7th 05, 07:46 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Big Bill writes:

I'm clearly talking about those people who *insist* on their "rights",
when it's not necessary, and only being done to make a point thjat
doesn't need to be made.


Yes, many people in public places are like that. Often they don't even
have the rights they claim to be trying to defend.

Hogwash. You know that's just not true, or you're not the photographer
you think you are.


Unfortunately, it _is_ more and more true.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #517  
Old April 7th 05, 07:46 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Big Bill writes:

I'm clearly talking about those people who *insist* on their "rights",
when it's not necessary, and only being done to make a point thjat
doesn't need to be made.


Yes, many people in public places are like that. Often they don't even
have the rights they claim to be trying to defend.

Hogwash. You know that's just not true, or you're not the photographer
you think you are.


Unfortunately, it _is_ more and more true.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #518  
Old April 7th 05, 07:47 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Big Bill writes:

And what happened? Did the fears come true?


Yes.

They can't have, if the same fears are still being expressed,
can they?


Societies tend to oscillate between great freedom and zero freedom.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #519  
Old April 7th 05, 07:47 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Big Bill writes:

And what happened? Did the fears come true?


Yes.

They can't have, if the same fears are still being expressed,
can they?


Societies tend to oscillate between great freedom and zero freedom.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  #520  
Old April 7th 05, 08:30 PM
Chris Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Big Bill wrote:

That's to be expected; the UK as an Official Secrets Act, which, AIUI,
basically says, if we (the gov't) didn't give you the right to see it,
listen to it, record it, or know about it, if you do any of those
things, it's illegal.


I think you have that a bit backwards. The purpose of the OSA is to prevent
people from *revealing* sensitive information. If someone in posession of an
official secret was to reveal it to me, as a member of the public, it would
be they who have broken the act, not me.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best cat breed with young children at home -L. Digital Photography 2 February 11th 05 01:49 AM
Best cat breed with young children at home -L. 35mm Photo Equipment 0 February 7th 05 08:30 AM
Best large bird with young children at home Ron Hudson 35mm Photo Equipment 1 February 4th 05 09:10 PM
Books on Composition, developing an "Eye"? William J. Slater General Photography Techniques 9 April 7th 04 04:22 PM
Photographing children Steven Church Photographing People 13 October 21st 03 10:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.