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...."

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.