The de-liberalization of photography

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"tony wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article
,
RichA
wrote:
More evidence:
CNN:

Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
exists."
That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.

Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.

Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
that foots the legal bill.

I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
other organization would already be putting an oar in.

It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
heart or light of wallet.


It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
there's a need to go higher.

Even so . . .

Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
banning.

Or it could percolate up to the Supreme Court and they could decide that
the ban(s) are in fact constitutional. Just because a case gets appealed
up to the SC doesn't mean their final* decision will go the "correct"
way.


*Final but for a Constitutional amendment, which is the only way for
anyone other than the Supreme Court to reverse a SC decision.

On 10-11-29 17:52 , John A. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:43:18 -0500, Alan Browne


Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
banning.

Or, as Paul posted, it will be brought to the attention of legislative
bodies who can do something about it without there having to be a
contested trial. Just the fact that enough constituents want something
done would be enough.

To paraphrase Tony's reply: what State would that possibly happen in,
and is it one of the cited states?

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 10-11-29 18:56 , John A. wrote:

The politicians in your state don't pander to voters? Must be some
heavy-duty lobbyists down there.

Pandering to voters is what has resulted in the US' extremely high
incarceration rate (v. other western nations). If one candidate vows to
put people away for 20 years for armed robbery, the next will promise 30
years. "I'm tougher on crime, you see, so vote for me!".

The Economist did a section on the absurdly high incarceration rates and
long prison sentences in the US a few months ago. Appalling hardly
describes it (See the quoted excerpt below).

No politician is going to campaign on the appearance of weakening police
powers.

In the words of Gust Avrakotos: "That's something you want to keep your
eye on."

Incarcerations per 100,000 citizens:

US: 748
Russia: 600
Brazil: 245
Iran: 225
Britain: 155
France: 95
China: 125
Canada: 120
Germany: 80
Japan: 65
Source: International Centre for Prison Studies.
Reported in The Economist, 2010.07.22
(Note, I read the numbers from a graph, so there may be an error of
about +/- 5, except for the US and Russia for which figures were given).

From the Economist article, 2010.07.22:
http://www.economist.com/node/166360...ry_id=16636027

QUOTE:
THREE pickup trucks pulled up outside George Norris’s home in Spring,
Texas. Six armed police in flak jackets jumped out. Thinking they must
have come to the wrong place, Mr Norris opened his front door, and was
startled to be shoved against a wall and frisked for weapons. He was
forced into a chair for four hours while officers ransacked his house.
They pulled out drawers, rifled through papers, dumped things on the
floor and eventually loaded 37 boxes of Mr Norris’s possessions onto
their pickups. They refused to tell him what he had done wrong. “It
wasn’t fun, I can tell you that,” he recalls.

Mr Norris was 65 years old at the time, and a collector of orchids. He
eventually discovered that he was suspected of smuggling the flowers
into America, an offence under the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species. This came as a shock. He did indeed import flowers
and sell them to other orchid-lovers. And it was true that his suppliers
in Latin America were sometimes sloppy about their paperwork. In a
shipment of many similar-looking plants, it was rare for each permit to
match each orchid precisely.

In March 2004, five months after the raid, Mr Norris was indicted,
handcuffed and thrown into a cell with a suspected murderer and two
suspected drug-dealers. When told why he was there, “they thought it
hilarious.” One asked: “What do you do with these things? Smoke ’em?”
Prosecutors described Mr Norris as the “kingpin” of an international
smuggling ring. He was dumbfounded: his annual profits were never more
than about $20,000. When prosecutors suggested that he should inform on
other smugglers in return for a lighter sentence, he refused, insisting
he knew nothing beyond hearsay.

He pleaded innocent. But an undercover federal agent had ordered some
orchids from him, a few of which arrived without the correct papers. For
this, he was charged with making a false statement to a government
official, a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
Since he had communicated with his suppliers, he was charged with
conspiracy, which also carries a potential five-year term.

As his legal bills exploded, Mr Norris reluctantly changed his plea to
guilty, though he still protests his innocence. He was sentenced to 17
months in prison. After some time, he was released while his appeal was
heard, but then put back inside. His health suffered: he has Parkinson’s
disease, which was not helped by the strain of imprisonment. For
bringing some prescription sleeping pills into prison, he was put in
solitary confinement for 71 days. The prison was so crowded, however,
that even in solitary he had two room-mates.

/QUOTE

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 2010-11-29 16:34:11 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-11-29 18:56 , John A. wrote:

The politicians in your state don't pander to voters? Must be some
heavy-duty lobbyists down there.

Pandering to voters is what has resulted in the US' extremely high
incarceration rate (v. other western nations). If one candidate vows to
put people away for 20 years for armed robbery, the next will promise 30
years. "I'm tougher on crime, you see, so vote for me!".

....and in California, those same voters then complain when they are
told that those stiff sentences they voted for, will actually cost them
money. About $40,000 per year for each of the 170,000 inmates.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 11/29/2010 6:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:52:14 -0500, John
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:43:18 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"tony wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article
,
RichA
wrote:
More evidence:
CNN:

Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
exists."
That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.

Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.

Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
that foots the legal bill.

I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
other organization would already be putting an oar in.

It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
heart or light of wallet.


It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
there's a need to go higher.

Even so . . .

Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
banning.

Or, as Paul posted, it will be brought to the attention of legislative
bodies who can do something about it without there having to be a
contested trial. Just the fact that enough constituents want something
done would be enough.

I want to live in your state.


At one time I seriously considered living n yours, but decided I would
be happier as a visitor.


--
Peter
Who among us is living in a state of bliss

On 11/29/2010 6:56 PM, John A. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:41:55 -0500, tony cooper

I want to live in your state.

The politicians in your state don't pander to voters? Must be some
heavy-duty lobbyists down there.

Many years ago the owners of a highly successful business, after not
backing him in his race for reelection, were told by the then Governor
of FL that they had two years to leave the State. They sold the business
for far less than it;s true value and left.

--
Peter
A smart business person does not fight irrational government.

On 10-11-29 20:22 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-11-29 16:34:11 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-11-29 18:56 , John A. wrote:

The politicians in your state don't pander to voters? Must be some
heavy-duty lobbyists down there.

Pandering to voters is what has resulted in the US' extremely high
incarceration rate (v. other western nations). If one candidate vows to
put people away for 20 years for armed robbery, the next will promise 30
years. "I'm tougher on crime, you see, so vote for me!".

...and in California, those same voters then complain when they are told
that those stiff sentences they voted for, will actually cost them
money. About $40,000 per year for each of the 170,000 inmates.

Political candidates rarely talks about the negative consequences of
their proposals

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On 11/29/2010 7:34 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-11-29 18:56 , John A. wrote:

The politicians in your state don't pander to voters? Must be some
heavy-duty lobbyists down there.

Pandering to voters is what has resulted in the US' extremely high
incarceration rate (v. other western nations). If one candidate vows to
put people away for 20 years for armed robbery, the next will promise 30
years. "I'm tougher on crime, you see, so vote for me!".

The Economist did a section on the absurdly high incarceration rates and
long prison sentences in the US a few months ago. Appalling hardly
describes it (See the quoted excerpt below).

No politician is going to campaign on the appearance of weakening police
powers.

In the words of Gust Avrakotos: "That's something you want to keep your
eye on."

Incarcerations per 100,000 citizens:

US: 748
Russia: 600
Brazil: 245
Iran: 225
Britain: 155
France: 95
China: 125
Canada: 120
Germany: 80
Japan: 65
Source: International Centre for Prison Studies.
Reported in The Economist, 2010.07.22
(Note, I read the numbers from a graph, so there may be an error of
about +/- 5, except for the US and Russia for which figures were given).

From the Economist article, 2010.07.22:
http://www.economist.com/node/166360...ry_id=16636027

QUOTE:
THREE pickup trucks pulled up outside George Norris’s home in Spring,
Texas. Six armed police in flak jackets jumped out. Thinking they must
have come to the wrong place, Mr Norris opened his front door, and was
startled to be shoved against a wall and frisked for weapons. He was
forced into a chair for four hours while officers ransacked his house.
They pulled out drawers, rifled through papers, dumped things on the
floor and eventually loaded 37 boxes of Mr Norris’s possessions onto
their pickups. They refused to tell him what he had done wrong. “It
wasn’t fun, I can tell you that,” he recalls.

Mr Norris was 65 years old at the time, and a collector of orchids. He
eventually discovered that he was suspected of smuggling the flowers
into America, an offence under the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species. This came as a shock. He did indeed import flowers
and sell them to other orchid-lovers. And it was true that his suppliers
in Latin America were sometimes sloppy about their paperwork. In a
shipment of many similar-looking plants, it was rare for each permit to
match each orchid precisely.

In March 2004, five months after the raid, Mr Norris was indicted,
handcuffed and thrown into a cell with a suspected murderer and two
suspected drug-dealers. When told why he was there, “they thought it
hilarious.” One asked: “What do you do with these things? Smoke ’em?”
Prosecutors described Mr Norris as the “kingpin” of an international
smuggling ring. He was dumbfounded: his annual profits were never more
than about $20,000. When prosecutors suggested that he should inform on
other smugglers in return for a lighter sentence, he refused, insisting
he knew nothing beyond hearsay.

He pleaded innocent. But an undercover federal agent had ordered some
orchids from him, a few of which arrived without the correct papers. For
this, he was charged with making a false statement to a government
official, a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
Since he had communicated with his suppliers, he was charged with
conspiracy, which also carries a potential five-year term.

As his legal bills exploded, Mr Norris reluctantly changed his plea to
guilty, though he still protests his innocence. He was sentenced to 17
months in prison. After some time, he was released while his appeal was
heard, but then put back inside. His health suffered: he has Parkinson’s
disease, which was not helped by the strain of imprisonment. For
bringing some prescription sleeping pills into prison, he was put in
solitary confinement for 71 days. The prison was so crowded, however,
that even in solitary he had two room-mates.


he prison industry is one of the largest in many States.

--
Peter

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:56:04 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:41:55 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:52:14 -0500, John A.
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:43:18 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"tony wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article
,
RichA
wrote:
More evidence:
CNN:

Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
exists."
That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.

Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.

Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
that foots the legal bill.

I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
other organization would already be putting an oar in.

It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
heart or light of wallet.


It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
there's a need to go higher.

Even so . . .

Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
banning.

Or, as Paul posted, it will be brought to the attention of legislative
bodies who can do something about it without there having to be a
contested trial. Just the fact that enough constituents want something
done would be enough.

I want to live in your state.

The politicians in your state don't pander to voters? Must be some
heavy-duty lobbyists down there.

The voting population is about one-third of the total population, and
roughly half of that number vote along party lines. The number of
voters that bothered to vote on proposed Amendments to the state
constitution was less than one-third.

Voters don't come out for issues far more important to them than the
problems of a handful of photographers. This may be a big issue to
you, as a photographer, but it doesn't get on the radar of the average
voter.

Politicians don't pay attention to small voting blocs that represent
special interests. I don't even know where to put the decimal in
estimating the number of Floridians deeply interested in the rights of
photographers. Pick a place for the decimal in 0000000001 percent


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 11/29/2010 6:59 PM, shiva das wrote:
In articleBoednQCKgPwbsWnRnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews. com,
Alan wrote:

On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"tony wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
In article
,
RichA
wrote:
More evidence:
CNN:

Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
exists."
That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.

Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.

Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
that foots the legal bill.

I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
other organization would already be putting an oar in.

It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
heart or light of wallet.


It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
there's a need to go higher.

Even so . . .

Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
banning.

Or it could percolate up to the Supreme Court and they could decide that
the ban(s) are in fact constitutional. Just because a case gets appealed
up to the SC doesn't mean their final* decision will go the "correct"
way.


*Final but for a Constitutional amendment, which is the only way for
anyone other than the Supreme Court to reverse a SC decision.

As a practical matter factual distinctions are commonly used as a means
of "distinguishing" cases. Sometimes the real reason for distinguishing
is that the court just did not want to overturn a precedence that it
felt should be overturned, but didn't want to.

--
Peter