Utah wants to ban photography of farms.

In article , Darrell
Larose wrote:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Ut...to--4839.shtml

I wonder if this will pass, as it does seem to be a First Amendment
issue. So add farms to buildings and bridges that are verbotten!

a lot of fuss about absolutely nothing.

according to that article, the recording (audio or video) must take
place "while the person is on the property where the agricultural
operation is located, after receiving notice from the owner".

in other words, if you're on someone elses property and they tell you
to stop taking photos, you need to stop. existing laws already deal
with this.

On 3/6/2012 2:06 PM, nospam wrote:
In , Darrell
wrote:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Ut...to--4839.shtml

I wonder if this will pass, as it does seem to be a First Amendment
issue. So add farms to buildings and bridges that are verbotten!

a lot of fuss about absolutely nothing.

according to that article, the recording (audio or video) must take
place "while the person is on the property where the agricultural
operation is located, after receiving notice from the owner".

in other words, if you're on someone elses property and they tell you
to stop taking photos, you need to stop. existing laws already deal
with this.

However, if the photographer is on public property, photographs can be
taken without restriction.

--
Jim Silverton

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

In article , James Silverton
wrote:

However, if the photographer is on public property, photographs can be
taken without restriction.

legally yes. realistically, you may be harassed and/or arrested.

On 3/6/2012 2:37 PM, nospam wrote:
In , James Silverton
wrote:

However, if the photographer is on public property, photographs can be
taken without restriction.

legally yes. realistically, you may be harassed and/or arrested.

Practically, you are likely correct but it will probably take passive
resistance to re-establish the right. Perhaps, the ACLU might help.

--
Jim Silverton

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

legally yes. realistically, you may be harassed and/or arrested.

An arrest is improper if no law has been broken.

so is harassment. it still happens.

Mxsmanic writes:

nospam writes:

legally yes. realistically, you may be harassed and/or arrested.

An arrest is improper if no law has been broken.

Possibly, though there are other considerations -- people are arrested
as material witnesses when they haven't broken any laws, for an extreme
example.

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether you *will be* arrested.
Improper arrests are not any more fun than proper ones.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

legally yes. realistically, you may be harassed and/or arrested.

An arrest is improper if no law has been broken.

Possibly, though there are other considerations -- people are arrested
as material witnesses when they haven't broken any laws, for an extreme
example.

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether you *will be* arrested.
Improper arrests are not any more fun than proper ones.

not during the arrest it isn't, but if it really is a false arrest, it
can become quite a bit more fun when you file a lawsuit after it's all
over.

On 06/03/2012 4:54 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
nospam writes:

legally yes. realistically, you may be harassed and/or arrested.

An arrest is improper if no law has been broken.

Yet we see it happening on a regular basis with Police stopping
photographers.


--
Mike

tony cooper writes:

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:53:32 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Mxsmanic writes:

nospam writes:

legally yes. realistically, you may be harassed and/or arrested.

An arrest is improper if no law has been broken.

Possibly, though there are other considerations -- people are arrested
as material witnesses

? What charge? A witness can be subpoenaed to testify, but not
arrested for this. In some cases, taken into protective custody, but
that's not an arrest.

Maybe I've got the technicalities wrong, but if they have no choice but
to go with you, then I'm going to call it "arrested". Your freedom has
been abrogated.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info