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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The de-liberalization of photography
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The de-liberalization of photography | tony cooper | Digital Photography | 19 | December 2nd 10 09:47 PM |