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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Your right to Photograph?
"no_name" wrote in message m... William Graham wrote: "The Dave©" wrote in message ... Michael wrote: "He had a camera with him. It was obvious he was taking photographs,' Southlake Police Lt. Ashleigh Douglas said. 'But during their investigation, (investigators) determined the photographs were deemed inappropriate.' I caught that, also. Translated it comes across as "We in Southlake view photography as inherently sinister, so we arrested the guy without really knowing what he was taking pictures of or why.". Photography in a public place is not illegal. Southlake police, however, said the nature of the pictures Vogel took violated state law. 'You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person,' Douglas said." This type of enforcement crosses a line better left uncrossed. Investigators do not get to decide what is and what is not appropriate; law makes that distinction. Investigators enforce the law. Playing Devil's Advocate, since the police technically don't "know", it's best to err on the side of caution and let the courts sort it out later. I don't accept that line of reasoning, but some do. -- "I ain't evil, I'm just good lookin'..." If, "The nature of the pictures Vogel took violated state law", then the state law must have been violated by the people who were displaying whatever it was that he was taking pictures of. IOW, if you are showing something in public that taking pictures of constitutes a violation of state law, then you must be in violation of the law by displaying it in public. So the police should have arrested the displayers, as well as the displayee/photographer. In general, taking pictures of something is no worse than looking at it, and if there is no law violated by looking at something that someone displays in public, then there shouldn't be any law against photographing it. This is speculation ... But if the photographer was taking pictures ONLY of women's breasts and crotches, even though the women were fully clothed, or ONLY of particular parts of fully clothed small children ... it could violate the law. And in most places in the US, not just in Texas, if you go around openly staring ONLY at women's breasts and crotchs, you're likely to get in trouble. But how would they (the police) know exactly what he was taking pictures of? - When I am taking pictures in public with a long lens, I could just concentrate on one body part or another, and no one would know. Or, I could crop out any particular body parts in the darkroom, or with photoshop on my computer. If my fetish was children's feet, I could throw the rest of the photograph away, and just keep thousands of pictures of children's feet! - but what is more important is: Who the hell would care? It's nobody's business what turns me on, and certainly no harm to the children being photographed, is it? - Would the police be happier if I kidnapped the kids and cut off their feet? In that case, a clear violation of the law would be apparent for their prosecution. Which is why I made the comment to the original poster of this thread: "Sounds like the thought police are on the move again...." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Your right to Photograph?
William Graham wrote:
But how would they (the police) know exactly what he was taking pictures of? - When I am taking pictures in public with a long lens, I could just concentrate on one body part or another, and no one would know. Or, I could crop out any particular body parts in the darkroom, or with photoshop on my computer. If my fetish was children's feet, I could throw the rest of the photograph away, and just keep thousands of pictures of children's feet! - but what is more important is: Who the hell would care? It's nobody's business what turns me on, and certainly no harm to the children being photographed, is it? - Would the police be happier if I kidnapped the kids and cut off their feet? In that case, a clear violation of the law would be apparent for their prosecution. Which is why I made the comment to the original poster of this thread: "Sounds like the thought police are on the move again...." I have to agree - no matter how offensive/odd I find the activity or the images personally, I just can't see the sense in it. Now if the photographing was making people uncomfortable that might be a different matter. Of course if those being photographed found out what he was taking photos of it might make them uncomfortable about having been photographed and feel violated. But then you get this situation where it's okay to do it as long as you don't let the 'victim' know you're doing it. But then the laws on sex and porn are exactly like that - it's perfectly okay as long as people who would be offended aren't aware you're doing it. You're in a maze of twisty tunnels, all exactly the same. I may be simplifying the laws above, but effectively when you include the enforcement side of it that's what it equates to. Personally if I'm taking photos of someone I don't know, I'll generally ask them if they mind and offer to send them some. Tom -- sing, not snig if you want the mail to get to me. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Your right to Photograph in public places? | Mike Berger | Digital Photography | 36 | October 21st 05 08:36 AM |
Your right to Photograph in public places? | Mikey | Digital Photography | 1 | October 14th 05 05:19 AM |
Can anyone take a good photograph? | Tom Hudson | 35mm Photo Equipment | 203 | January 6th 05 03:55 PM |
photograph church wedding without flash | Andrew Liu | General Photography Techniques | 9 | February 24th 04 12:58 AM |
share a story behind a special photograph in 300+ words (A Picture's Worth) | David | Fine Art, Framing and Display | 3 | December 30th 03 07:06 AM |