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
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
The topic of shooter's rights has been beaten to discussed in the
forums, so I thought that this article, by the ACLU, would be of interest of all of us who have been harassed for no good reason. As many of us suspected, the harassment is totally unjustified. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:22:24 -0400, Bowser wrote:
: The topic of shooter's rights has been beaten to discussed in the : forums, so I thought that this article, by the ACLU, would be of : interest of all of us who have been harassed for no good reason. As many : of us suspected, the harassment is totally unjustified. : : http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers A couple of further points: "Public spaces" and "private property" are not mutually exclusive; and where the two intersect, the rights of property owners to control the behavior of photographers may vary in different jurisdictions. I was once told to stop taking pictures in a mall in Massachusetts, and I seriously doubt that the mall's owners could have made a trespassing charge stick if I had elected to continue. (All five of my grandchildren were present, and I didn't want to provoke a scene.) But different states may have different laws. Public employees, and especially police officers, who are performing their duties correctly should welcome having those activities photographed. The photographs may be valuable evidence against a charge of brutality or harrassment. If, for example, the Rodney King videos had shown the police officers arresting Mr King for speeding and drunk driving with the appropriate force they had presumably been taught to use, instead of trying to beat him to a pulp, most of the controversy would have been avoided. (Full disclosu I'm a public employee, and part of my job involves photographing scenes and events for my employer - for whatever difference that makes.) Bob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On 9/9/2011 9:59 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
"Public spaces" and "private property" are not mutually exclusive; and where the two intersect, the rights of property owners to control the behavior of photographers may vary in different jurisdictions. I was once told to stop taking pictures in a mall in Massachusetts, and I seriously doubt that the mall's owners could have made a trespassing charge stick if I had elected to continue. The 1st Circuit has repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not prevent a property owner from restricting the exercise of free speech on private property, explicitly including a private shopping mall. IIRC, all Simon-owned malls require explicit permission for any on-premise photography. If the mall cop had asked you to leave and you refused to do so, if the mall pressed trespassing charges they likely would stick, just as the ACLU states. Suffice it to say that taking legal advice from random internet posters is a bad idea. You may safely assume I'm a random internet poster. -- Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required) You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On 9/9/2011 9:03 PM, Mike Benveniste wrote:
The 1st Circuit has repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not prevent a property owner from restricting the exercise of free speech on private property, explicitly including a private shopping mall. Back when Fry's Electronics was a tourist attraction people would come in and take pictures in violation of store policy. The store was polite about it, they asked for your film and would process it at no charge and return all but the photos of the store to you. When word got out about this, people would go into the store with a fully exposed roll of film in the camera and pretend to take photos, then give the film to the store's security for free processing. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:34:29 -0700, SMS wrote:
: On 9/9/2011 9:03 PM, Mike Benveniste wrote: : : The 1st Circuit has repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not : prevent a property owner from restricting the exercise of free speech on : private property, explicitly including a private shopping mall. : : Back when Fry's Electronics was a tourist attraction people would come : in and take pictures in violation of store policy. The store was polite : about it, they asked for your film and would process it at no charge and : return all but the photos of the store to you. When word got out about : this, people would go into the store with a fully exposed roll of film : in the camera and pretend to take photos, then give the film to the : store's security for free processing. Why was Fry's a tourist attraction? And given that it was, why would they want you not to take pictures? Why wouldn't they like the free publicity? All else aside, absolute prohibitions against photography are impossible to enforce, now that cameras are so small and virtually every cell phone incorporates one. The most a mall security guard can do is try to ensure that your pictures aren't very good. Which wouldn't bother a terrorist at all. They don't care how pretty the building is, just where the doors are, etc. Bob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On 9/9/2011 10:42 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
Why was Fry's a tourist attraction? When Fry's started out it was essentially a store for nerds. You picked up chips (ICs), chips (potato), shampoo, disk drives, motherboards, etc.. They advertise heavily in the manner of supermarkets (since the founders were from the Fry's supermarket family). There was nothing else like it. Now the component side is virtually non-existent, they're more like a Best Buy selling major appliances, computers, televisions, etc.. And given that it was, why would they want you not to take pictures? Why wouldn't they like the free publicity? Store security believes that theft rings take photos in order to plan shoplifting sprees. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On 10/09/2011 01:22, Bowser wrote:
The topic of shooter's rights has been beaten to discussed in the forums, so I thought that this article, by the ACLU, would be of interest of all of us who have been harassed for no good reason. As many of us suspected, the harassment is totally unjustified. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers One detail they have got wrong is that in most airports you are on *private* property and the owner sets the rules. No UK airport permits photography at the security checkpoints and no use of camera signs are clearly displayed. Unless you wish to miss your flight it is not a good idea to annoy airport security. The long queues are a potential terrorist target (we have had one failed attack on a UK airport). My encounters with UK police and security have always been professional - it is just a hard core of barrack room lawyers that go out of their way get arrested for taking photographs and being obstructive. It makes good copy for AP whinging and whining articles. Things were actually tighter and more often enforced during the 1970's IRA bombing campaign. Regards, Martin Brown |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
In article , Robert Coe
wrote: Why was Fry's a tourist attraction? And given that it was, why would they want you not to take pictures? Why wouldn't they like the free publicity? each fry's store has a unique design, and they are very protective about stuff like that. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
In article , Bowser
says... http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers That is valid in the USA. How about other countries? -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
an excellent read from the ACLU
On 2011-09-13 09:22:38 -0700, Alfred Molon said:
In article , Bowser says... http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know...-photographers That is valid in the USA. How about other countries? Yup! The UK without a Constitution remains confused. All UK photographers seem to believe they have the right to take photographs anywhere in/on public property. However they seem least able to be consistent when it comes to enforcement by authorities, official and/or rent-a-cops. As for the rest of Europe I have not heard of, or read any recent harassment of photographers. I understand there are issues regarding use of Eiffel Tower images, but I doubt there is any restriction on the hobbyist photographer/tourist at that site. I don't see any reason why the EU wouldn't adopt constitutional measures similar to the US Constitutional Bill of Rights. That would cover much of many of the issues regarding photographer's rights. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to your local knowledge regarding photographer's rights and/or harassment of photographers in non-UK Europe. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ASMP and ACLU gathering data on police harassment of photographers | C J Campbell[_2_] | Digital Photography | 13 | February 12th 10 06:17 PM |
ASMP and ACLU gathering data on police harassment of photographers | Peter[_7_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | February 11th 10 09:52 PM |
READ | ACPOKER78 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 1st 04 02:38 AM |
Dan - please read | Simon | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | August 22nd 03 11:25 AM |