No more taking pictures of people in public in Europe anymore

Bruce wrote:

complicated, to be understood by the product of an American "education".

Certainly the US education system has produced as is evidences by the
broad success of the country as a whole (present circumstances aside).

Are there dolts in the US? Sure. But that applies to Britain, for
example, and a measurable proportion of the "graduates" of comprehensive
"education".

Put another way, for every smart Brit, there are his doltish
compatriots. Just like in the US.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On 2009-02-08 08:54:47 -0800, Bruce said:

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2009-02-08 08:18:34 -0800, Bruce said:
C J Campbell wrote:

Ah.

A

human rights court suppressing freedom of expression.

No wonder the rest of the world thinks the Europeans are loony.


Ah.

An American who didn't read the details before passing comment.

No wonder Europeans consider Americans to be ignorant.

Europeans have thought that since before the founding of the United
States. And yet, they came here by the millions, fleeing just this sort
of oppression.


They weren't fleeing oppression. They were the dregs of society, people
who couldn't make a decent living in their home countries.

They didn't just go to America - they went all over the world.

Yep. Ask any former European penal colony whether they want to be part
of Europe again. Or any former colony at all.


Anyway, thanks for demonstrating that you still haven't read the
details. Perhaps the words were too long, and the concepts too
complicated, to be understood by the product of an American "education".

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2009-02-08 08:55:30 -0800, Bruce said:

C J Campbell wrote:

If that is so, it is only because we have too many Americans who think
that it is fashionable to emulate the Europeans.


The world has too many Americans. Period.

Nah. We need more. Lots more. Our work force is not nearly large enough
to support us old retired guys on Social Security.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Bruce wrote:
C J Campbell wrote:
If that is so, it is only because we have too many Americans who think
that it is fashionable to emulate the Europeans.


The world has too many Americans. Period.

Oh a hate theme. Sigh. Realization of ones own inadequacies lead to
hate and a notion of a limit on a people. A noteworthy bit of hate
since the US is probably the most ethnically diverse country in the world.

What's your problem Bruce?


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

C J Campbell wrote:

Yep. Ask any former European penal colony whether they want to be part
of Europe again.


Yep. Ask any European if he/she wants the criminals back.

Answer: "USA and everywhere else: You are welcome to them!"

On 2009-02-08 09:36:09 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

Bruce wrote:
C J Campbell wrote:
If that is so, it is only because we have too many Americans who think
that it is fashionable to emulate the Europeans.


The world has too many Americans. Period.

Oh a hate theme. Sigh. Realization of ones own inadequacies lead to
hate and a notion of a limit on a people. A noteworthy bit of hate
since the US is probably the most ethnically diverse country in the
world.

What's your problem Bruce?

I think Bruce and I are just having a little fun. I would not take what
either of us says too seriously.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Brian Sullivan" wrote in
:

http://www.inquisitr.com/17518

The Soviet Union of Europe.
See what happens when you let SOCIALISTS run the show?
Pretty soon, scumbag politicians and cops will be off the list of
permissible targets.

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message 2009020808112916807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom,
C J Campbell writes
On 2009-02-07 18:15:42 -0800, "Brian Sullivan"
said:

http://www.inquisitr.com/17518/no-mo...-people-in-pub
lic-in-europe-anymore/

Ah.

A human rights court suppressing freedom of expression.

No it wasn't read the judgement not the very short report of it.

No wonder the rest of the world thinks the Europeans are loony.

The rest of the world does not think the Europeans are loony. At least
not compared to the Americans.


Well yes we do actually but thanks for responding anyway.

On 2009-02-07 18:15:42 -0800, "Brian Sullivan"
said:

http://www.inquisitr.com/17518/no-mo...urope-anymore/

In

all seriousness (poking fun at the Europeans aside), any court in the
United States would have probably ruled the same.

Hospitals are public places -- even privately owned hospitals. One
would have no particular expectation of privacy in most public places,
such as restaurants or bus stations, but a hospital is different.
Courts have held for a long time that people do have some expectation
of privacy in a hospital or doctor's office even though these are open
to the public. Some people simply do not care to have the fact that
they are sick or in a hospital made available to the general public.
Besides, patients are often in circumstances that could leave them open
to ridicule, such as being undressed. It is tough enough to get women
to have a breast exam or men to have a colonoscopy without them also
worrying about whether photographs of the procedure are going to appear
on a hospital bulletin board or even the daily news.

There are notable exceptions, of course. X-rays and other photographs
such as the aforementioned colonoscopy that are taken for the purpose
of treating a patient may not require the patient's explicit consent,
although patient consent is usually required for any form of treatment.
Photographs taken in hospitals for the purpose of investigating a
crime, such as assault or child abuse, or investigating an accident,
might also be taken without anyone's consent. Photographs taken as part
of an autopsy would also be allowed. Hospitals also have security
cameras, both to prevent crime and to protect patients from unwarranted
intrusion.

Many people have strict religious taboos against having their
photograph taken. Some are opposed to having any image made of them at
all. Clearly, a photograph taken for the express purpose of resale to a
patient or family is not a necessary violation of a patient's
expectation of privacy. If anything is at all surprising about this
case, it is that the Greek courts chose not to affirm this right of
privacy, but instead left it to a European Human Rights court.

It is not difficult to imagine some celebrity baby being born in the
hospital and the parents then being asked to pay handsomely for the
photographs with the implicit threat that if they do not pay the
photographs are going to show up the next day in the tabloids. Nor is
it difficult to imagine the photographs falling into the wrong hands,
no matter how much a hospital says it will no release the photos to
anyone but the parents.

The real problem with cases like this is that courts (and legislators)
have a tendency to plug a perceived leak to the right of privacy that
may be only the size of a pinhole with a stopper the size of a
battleship. Egregious behavior of one photographer can put a severe
cramp on the rights of thousands, if not millions, of legitimate
photographers. There is a serious danger that court rulings like this
could be used as a precedent to take action against photographers that
are acting well within their rights. Even if the photographers prevail,
it still costs them considerable time and money, as well as chilling
their artistic freedom of expression. But if they do not prevail, then
an important right of expression has been reduced even more.

It would have been far better for the hospital to just comply with the
couple's demands and give them the negatives rather than threaten all
photographers' civil rights by allowing this case to go to court. There
is a price to be paid for being too confrontational, and we certainly
see it here.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2009-02-07 18:15:42 -0800, "Brian Sullivan"
said:

http://www.inquisitr.com/17518/no-mo...urope-anymore/

In all seriousness (poking fun at the Europeans aside), any court in the
United States would have probably ruled the same.

Hospitals are public places -- even privately owned hospitals. One would
have no particular expectation of privacy in most public places, such as
restaurants or bus stations, but a hospital is different. Courts have
held for a long time that people do have some expectation of privacy in
a hospital or doctor's office even though these are open to the public.
Some people simply do not care to have the fact that they are sick or in
a hospital made available to the general public. Besides, patients are
often in circumstances that could leave them open to ridicule, such as
being undressed. It is tough enough to get women to have a breast exam
or men to have a colonoscopy without them also worrying about whether
photographs of the procedure are going to appear on a hospital bulletin
board or even the daily news.

There are notable exceptions, of course. X-rays and other photographs
such as the aforementioned colonoscopy that are taken for the purpose of
treating a patient may not require the patient's explicit consent,
although patient consent is usually required for any form of treatment.
Photographs taken in hospitals for the purpose of investigating a crime,
such as assault or child abuse, or investigating an accident, might also
be taken without anyone's consent. Photographs taken as part of an
autopsy would also be allowed. Hospitals also have security cameras,
both to prevent crime and to protect patients from unwarranted intrusion.

Many people have strict religious taboos against having their photograph
taken. Some are opposed to having any image made of them at all.
Clearly, a photograph taken for the express purpose of resale to a
patient or family is not a necessary violation of a patient's
expectation of privacy. If anything is at all surprising about this
case, it is that the Greek courts chose not to affirm this right of
privacy, but instead left it to a European Human Rights court.

It is not difficult to imagine some celebrity baby being born in the
hospital and the parents then being asked to pay handsomely for the
photographs with the implicit threat that if they do not pay the
photographs are going to show up the next day in the tabloids. Nor is it
difficult to imagine the photographs falling into the wrong hands, no
matter how much a hospital says it will no release the photos to anyone
but the parents.

The real problem with cases like this is that courts (and legislators)
have a tendency to plug a perceived leak to the right of privacy that
may be only the size of a pinhole with a stopper the size of a
battleship. Egregious behavior of one photographer can put a severe
cramp on the rights of thousands, if not millions, of legitimate
photographers. There is a serious danger that court rulings like this
could be used as a precedent to take action against photographers that
are acting well within their rights. Even if the photographers prevail,
it still costs them considerable time and money, as well as chilling
their artistic freedom of expression. But if they do not prevail, then
an important right of expression has been reduced even more.

It would have been far better for the hospital to just comply with the
couple's demands and give them the negatives rather than threaten all
photographers' civil rights by allowing this case to go to court. There
is a price to be paid for being too confrontational, and we certainly
see it here.

Yes, assholes on both sides. I bet the hospital has re-written admission
forms to 'protect' their stupid actions.

--
John McWilliams