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

an excellent read from the ACLU



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 10th 11, 01:22 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 309
Default an excellent read from the ACLU

The topic of shooter's rights has been beaten to discussed in the
forums, so I thought that this article, by the ACLU, would be of
interest of all of us who have been harassed for no good reason. As many
of us suspected, the harassment is totally unjustified.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers
  #2  
Old September 10th 11, 02:59 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default an excellent read from the ACLU

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:22:24 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: The topic of shooter's rights has been beaten to discussed in the
: forums, so I thought that this article, by the ACLU, would be of
: interest of all of us who have been harassed for no good reason. As many
: of us suspected, the harassment is totally unjustified.
:
: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers

A couple of further points:

"Public spaces" and "private property" are not mutually exclusive; and where
the two intersect, the rights of property owners to control the behavior of
photographers may vary in different jurisdictions. I was once told to stop
taking pictures in a mall in Massachusetts, and I seriously doubt that the
mall's owners could have made a trespassing charge stick if I had elected to
continue. (All five of my grandchildren were present, and I didn't want to
provoke a scene.) But different states may have different laws.

Public employees, and especially police officers, who are performing their
duties correctly should welcome having those activities photographed. The
photographs may be valuable evidence against a charge of brutality or
harrassment. If, for example, the Rodney King videos had shown the police
officers arresting Mr King for speeding and drunk driving with the appropriate
force they had presumably been taught to use, instead of trying to beat him to
a pulp, most of the controversy would have been avoided.

(Full disclosu I'm a public employee, and part of my job involves
photographing scenes and events for my employer - for whatever difference that
makes.)

Bob
  #3  
Old September 10th 11, 05:03 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Mike Benveniste
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default an excellent read from the ACLU

On 9/9/2011 9:59 PM, Robert Coe wrote:

"Public spaces" and "private property" are not mutually exclusive; and where
the two intersect, the rights of property owners to control the behavior of
photographers may vary in different jurisdictions. I was once told to stop
taking pictures in a mall in Massachusetts, and I seriously doubt that the
mall's owners could have made a trespassing charge stick if I had elected to
continue.


The 1st Circuit has repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not
prevent a property owner from restricting the exercise of free speech on
private property, explicitly including a private shopping mall.

IIRC, all Simon-owned malls require explicit permission for any
on-premise photography. If the mall cop had asked you to leave and you
refused to do so, if the mall pressed trespassing charges they likely
would stick, just as the ACLU states.

Suffice it to say that taking legal advice from random internet posters
is a bad idea. You may safely assume I'm a random internet poster.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing
stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz
  #4  
Old September 10th 11, 05:34 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default an excellent read from the ACLU

On 9/9/2011 9:03 PM, Mike Benveniste wrote:

The 1st Circuit has repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not
prevent a property owner from restricting the exercise of free speech on
private property, explicitly including a private shopping mall.


Back when Fry's Electronics was a tourist attraction people would come
in and take pictures in violation of store policy. The store was polite
about it, they asked for your film and would process it at no charge and
return all but the photos of the store to you. When word got out about
this, people would go into the store with a fully exposed roll of film
in the camera and pretend to take photos, then give the film to the
store's security for free processing.
  #5  
Old September 10th 11, 06:42 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default an excellent read from the ACLU

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:34:29 -0700, SMS wrote:
: On 9/9/2011 9:03 PM, Mike Benveniste wrote:
:
: The 1st Circuit has repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not
: prevent a property owner from restricting the exercise of free speech on
: private property, explicitly including a private shopping mall.
:
: Back when Fry's Electronics was a tourist attraction people would come
: in and take pictures in violation of store policy. The store was polite
: about it, they asked for your film and would process it at no charge and
: return all but the photos of the store to you. When word got out about
: this, people would go into the store with a fully exposed roll of film
: in the camera and pretend to take photos, then give the film to the
: store's security for free processing.

Why was Fry's a tourist attraction? And given that it was, why would they want
you not to take pictures? Why wouldn't they like the free publicity?

All else aside, absolute prohibitions against photography are impossible to
enforce, now that cameras are so small and virtually every cell phone
incorporates one. The most a mall security guard can do is try to ensure that
your pictures aren't very good. Which wouldn't bother a terrorist at all. They
don't care how pretty the building is, just where the doors are, etc.

Bob
  #6  
Old September 10th 11, 08:36 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default an excellent read from the ACLU

On 9/9/2011 10:42 PM, Robert Coe wrote:

Why was Fry's a tourist attraction?


When Fry's started out it was essentially a store for nerds. You picked
up chips (ICs), chips (potato), shampoo, disk drives, motherboards,
etc.. They advertise heavily in the manner of supermarkets (since the
founders were from the Fry's supermarket family). There was nothing else
like it. Now the component side is virtually non-existent, they're more
like a Best Buy selling major appliances, computers, televisions, etc..

And given that it was, why would they want
you not to take pictures? Why wouldn't they like the free publicity?


Store security believes that theft rings take photos in order to plan
shoplifting sprees.
  #7  
Old September 10th 11, 09:16 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default an excellent read from the ACLU

On 10/09/2011 01:22, Bowser wrote:
The topic of shooter's rights has been beaten to discussed in the
forums, so I thought that this article, by the ACLU, would be of
interest of all of us who have been harassed for no good reason. As many
of us suspected, the harassment is totally unjustified.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers


One detail they have got wrong is that in most airports you are on
*private* property and the owner sets the rules. No UK airport permits
photography at the security checkpoints and no use of camera signs are
clearly displayed. Unless you wish to miss your flight it is not a good
idea to annoy airport security. The long queues are a potential
terrorist target (we have had one failed attack on a UK airport).

My encounters with UK police and security have always been professional
- it is just a hard core of barrack room lawyers that go out of their
way get arrested for taking photographs and being obstructive. It makes
good copy for AP whinging and whining articles. Things were actually
tighter and more often enforced during the 1970's IRA bombing campaign.

Regards,
Martin Brown
  #8  
Old September 10th 11, 08:21 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default an excellent read from the ACLU

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

Why was Fry's a tourist attraction? And given that it was, why would they want
you not to take pictures? Why wouldn't they like the free publicity?


each fry's store has a unique design, and they are very protective
about stuff like that.
  #9  
Old September 13th 11, 05:22 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alfred Molon[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,591
Default an excellent read from the ACLU

In article , Bowser
says...

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers


That is valid in the USA. How about other countries?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
  #10  
Old September 13th 11, 05:59 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default an excellent read from the ACLU

On 2011-09-13 09:22:38 -0700, Alfred Molon said:

In article , Bowser
says...

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers


That is valid in the USA. How about other countries?


Yup!

The UK without a Constitution remains confused. All UK photographers
seem to believe they have the right to take photographs anywhere in/on
public property. However they seem least able to be consistent when it
comes to enforcement by authorities, official and/or rent-a-cops.

As for the rest of Europe I have not heard of, or read any recent
harassment of photographers. I understand there are issues regarding
use of Eiffel Tower images, but I doubt there is any restriction on the
hobbyist photographer/tourist at that site.

I don't see any reason why the EU wouldn't adopt constitutional
measures similar to the US Constitutional Bill of Rights. That would
cover much of many of the issues regarding photographer's rights.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to your local knowledge regarding
photographer's rights and/or harassment of photographers in non-UK
Europe.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




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
ASMP and ACLU gathering data on police harassment of photographers C J Campbell[_2_] Digital Photography 13 February 12th 10 07:17 PM
ASMP and ACLU gathering data on police harassment of photographers Peter[_7_] Digital SLR Cameras 4 February 11th 10 10:52 PM
READ ACPOKER78 35mm Photo Equipment 0 September 1st 04 02:38 AM
Dan - please read Simon General Equipment For Sale 0 August 22nd 03 11:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:58 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.