Re: Law on photography update
BY THE WAY since we're on the topic.
No only is the generic and sweeping statement that "public photography is a right" not entirely correct, ALSO the sweeping statement that "there is no right to photography on private property" is also not entirely correct. In many cities, there are public easements over private property - in other words, places that are technically private, but are open to public pedestrian traffic or have historically been used for free speech - and these places are treated like public places for the purposes of free speech analysis.
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
What most of us need is a formula for staying within the protection of the first amendment...
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...&postcount=109
Really, I think this will work!
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BrianShaw
... and, a couple of posts later, I offered a free artists statement to go with the kit!!!
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
That's what you need to make your point, maybe. What most of us need is a formula for staying within the protection of the first amendment, given that one seems to exist that does not seem overly narrow. We don't have that now because the definitions have not been tested.
Yes but if you're really engaged in non-communicative photography, and you want to be able to continue doing so, you surely wouldn't want to resort to LYING to the police now, now would you? by saying that you're engaged in communicatve photography when you're not?! Oh! Surely not! :rolleyes:
IMHO whether you want to show your photos to other people or not should be determinative. The idea that the first Amendment only protects communication to other people is bullshit. The philosophical justifications for the freedom of expression include communicative as well as non-communicative ones. Self-realization, autonomy, the right to be left alone the right to think and experience your life - these are also things that frankly are MORE important and thus more deserving of protection than expressing ideas to others.
Re: Law on photography update
I would not be lying. I really do have a web page.
But, again, does a person who shows no pictures to anybody really deserve protection under freedom of speech?
Rick "it means what it means" Denney
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
I would not be lying. I really do have a web page.
But, again, does a person who shows no pictures to anybody really deserve protection under freedom of speech?
Rick "it means what it means" Denney
Just because you have a web page is no proof that the particular photo you're taking is intended to be communicative. Anyway, we don't even know for sure that even placing photos on a web page constitutes "communicative" speech (is there a need to direct a photo to a specific audience?)
And yes, like I said the idea of free speech is really more fundamentally about free thought. So whether you intend to communicate to others or not should not be determinative of whether you deserve protection
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
But, again, does a person who shows no pictures to anybody really deserve protection under freedom of speech?
Is a photographer who shows no pictures to anybody like an author whose book sells zero copies?
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark Stahlke
Is a photographer who shows no pictures to anybody like an author whose book sells zero copies?
Its issue is really couched in terms of having the "intent to communicate", successfully or not.
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyrus
You just admitted to the "crime" of
loitering.
COP: You standing there, what are you doing!?
DEFENDANT: Nothing!
COP: Here's your ticket.
In what city Cyrus?
Re: Law on photography update
Yes, indeed. Intent seems to be the key to the issue. Lucky for us, intent (or lack thereof) is a difficult thing to prove.
Cyrus, I wonder if you'd care to comment on how or if the doctrine of prior restraint would affect this whole issue. Could a photographer being cited or even arrested for a trivial infraction like loitering be considered prior restraint?
PS: Did I get affect right or did I need effect? :D