Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
...
I have a hard time wading through all this because it is to long!
But when you say : So, the trespass was irrelevant (perhaps) to that assertion which has potential ramifications. It was not irrelevant to the case.
That's all I need to see.
Yes, whether Porat was trespassing or not is irrelevant to the point we're discussing, which is the constitionality of non-public photography. Under the law as it exists, he can be banned from taking photos EVEN IF HE WAS NOT TRESPASSING.
I really don't know how else to say that. It doesn't matter if he was trespassing or not. that was in no way at all ever in the least bit determinative in the issue we're talking about here.
So let me make my points as clear as I can again:
1- Whether you're trespassing on private property, or whether you're standing on public property, you do not have a right to take non-communicative photographs.
Porat was not the first case to say that, it is the the most cited, and was affirmed on appeal.
Now regarding your view that this is pre-cancerous or cancerous or has already killed us: is a matter of opinion. My only point on that is that now,
2- In order for any ban on non-communicative photography to be enforced by the police, there is no need for any particular new law to be enacted which specifically declares photography itself to be a crime, because a number of generic existing laws can be interpretted to apply in a manner that bans non-communicative public photography.
Similarly, if the courts decide that twirling turtles whilst riding your unicycle is not constitutionally protected, there doesn't THEN need to be a law passed specifically banning twirling turtles on your unicycle. The EXISTING 'public disturbance' or 'safety' laws can be used to ban twirling turtles whilst riding unicycles.
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Ellis
Me too Bob.
Me three, Brian. And in my situation the military guard actually ask me to turn over my film (which I did) and they processed several rolls, reviewed them, and gave me both negs and prints the next day.
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyrus
As a juror you're in charge of determining facts not the law. Based on my hypothetical about driving a car on a closed highway lane, we're assuming that the fact that you were indeed driving a car on a closed highway lane was already established. The point I was making was that the neither the judge (nor the jury) gets to question the cop as to WHY he decided to close that lane. That decision is up to the cop. They're the ones who are trained and funded to make those decisions. Not juries and not judges. If there's a question as to whether you were in fact driving on a close highway lane, then the jury may decide that. But in our hypothetical, that's not an issue.
We certainly agree about the role of the juror.
Your hypothetical appear to be intentionally repeated to obfuscate and avoid my question. You said judges always believe the cop. I said that isn't what I've heard judges tell jurors to do. Hypotheticals aside... what's the story: are you correct or is the judge?
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Smith
And how would this be proven? Bearing in mind the fact that I am innocent until proven guilty.
I think you're clutching at straws now. There is no law banning photography in a public place. In your country it might or might not be protected by one or more amendments, in mine it isn't. That doesn't suddenly make it illegal.
Just moving a small box up to your face and pressing a button doesn't constitute 'disturbing the peace' any more than moving a carton of drink up to your mouth does (with or without digesticative intent!).
Whatever goes on inside that magic box is irrelevant, it is your actions with respect to other people and their property which might or might not attract the attention of the police.
Steve.
You are absolutely correct as a matter of UK law. As the Privy Council wrote in a 1986 decision:
"Obviously a person may loiter for a great variety of reasons, some entirely innocent and others not so. It would be unreasonable to construe the subsection to the effect that there might be subjected to questioning persons loitering for plainly inoffensive purposes, such as a tourist admiring the surrounding architecture."
The Councillors went on to define loitering in a way that could not possibly be applied to someone minding their own business, taking photographs or not, in a public place.
Underlying Cyrus's views is the idea that in the absence of constitutional protection, the legislators, the police, the prosecutors and judges, at least lower court ones, will systematically outlaw, as a matter of law or as a matter of de facto practice, innocent activity. Underlying that idea is another idea, which is that the political process doesn't work, meaning that there is no political accountability, only legal accountability. This leads to the belief that all issues should be treated, not as political issues, but rather as legal issues. The underlying assumption is that judges do not bring political views to bear in their work, an assumption that is at odds with the circus that goes on in Congress every time a judicial appointment is made.
The UK does not have entrenched rights (leaving aside the recent European Convention), yet UK photographers have not had any more difficulty than American photographers when it comes to exercising their craft. That is telling as a measure of how important, or not, this issue is that Cyrus has raised.
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Ellis
Me too Bob. In probably 40 years, starting at age 13, of making photographs all over the United States and many other parts of the world, I've been questioned exactly one time. That was by a bank security guard in Tampa who asked me to stop standing on the Bank's property to make photographs of a sculpture in front of the Bank, which I figured he had a right to do.
Of course I already knew I was unique with respect to photography because people never come up to me and talk about what camera I'm using, whereas some here say they just pull out their film camera and suddenly a crowd gathers around them, fascinated that they're using film.
I can maybe see people doing that but when I walked through San Francisco: Bart from Oakland to the Embarcadaro to Fisherman's Wharf out to Alcatraz and then to the submarine up to Coit Tower, down Lombardo Street, back to the BART and back to my hotel in Oakland with a Linhof Technorama 617 S III I never had anyone ask what I was using or what happened to it. Same doing Death Valley or Moab. People just don't come up to look. And if you have ever hung a T 617 SIII around your neck and tried to look inconspicuous it just will not happen.
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BrianShaw
We certainly agree about the role of the juror.
Your hyothetical appear to be intentionally repeated to obfuscate and avoid my question. You said judges always believe the cop. I said that isn't what I've heard judges tell jurors to do. Hyotheticals aside... what's the story: are you correct or is the judge?
I did not say judges always believe the cop. I said judges defer to the cop when it comes to making determinations as to what is for example "safe" for the public. If there is no constitutional point at stake, the judge doesn't tell the cop how to conduct traffic.
Re: Law on photography update
I saw you Bob... or maybe it was someone lese carrying a odd camera. I'm just too shy to talk to total strangers. :D
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
r.e.
Underlying Cyrus's views is the idea that in the absence of constitutional protection, the legislators, the police, the prosecutors and the judges will systematically outlaw, as a matter of law or as a matter of de facto practice, innocent activity. .
I just said that since non-communicative phtoography is mere conduct like chopping wood or twirling a turtle whilst riding a unicorn then
1- It has no constitutional protection, and furthermore
2- There is no need for a new law to be drafted to "systematically" ban it; existing laws are plenty good enough to be used to prohibit public noncommunicative photography.
I didn't make any assumption about the political process.
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cyrus
I did not say judges always believe the cop. I said judges defer to the cop when it comes to making determinations as to what is for example "safe" for the public. If there is no constitutional point at stake, the judge doesn't tell the cop how to conduct traffic.
OK, understood. I was thinking more along the lines of whether a cop had a "real" reason to cite/arrest for loitering, disturbing peace, or other things where there may be differing opinions and some sort of higher point at stake. I was thinking in situatio where one could question "how long does it have to be before one is "really" loitering?" or "Whose peace was "really" disturbed or were they just momentarily bothered?". But I suppose your reply will say that "safe" was just an example and also included as other examples are "disruptive", "interfering", and "annoying". I understand why you say a judge wouldn't bother getting in the middle of that kind of conversation.
Re: Law on photography update
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BrianShaw
I saw you Bob... or maybe it was someone lese carrying a odd camera. I'm just too shy to talk to total strangers. :D
Me too