Quote Originally Posted by r.e. View Post
Cyrus, it's clear to me that you do not practice law in the areas on which you have been expressing opinions in this thread. Maybe you do some kind of commercial law, maybe you are a paralegal, but on the subject at hand you are clearly over your head.

That wouldn't matter we're it not for the fact that you have been presenting yourself as an authority, and have consistently talked down to, and denigrated the views of, others. The reality is that your posts in this thread are the principal reason that it lacks any kind of focus, and that you are apparently prepared to say just about anything, including things that are, from a legal point of view, scatterbrained and/or patent nonsense, in order to "win". The result is that it is hard to take you seriously.

At the beginning of this thread, you said "As some of you know I've been involved in getting a lawsuit filed involving the right to take photos in a public place". I don't know what your role was in helping to get the suit filed, but I sincerely hope that someone else is quarterbacking it.
You're entitled to your opinions but I have never "talked down" to anyone and I have never denigrated anyone. And yes FYI I am hiring counsel to file my lawsuit.

Everything I've said here comes down to these points:

1- You do not have a "right" to take photos in a public place (or a private place) unless it is "expressive" - I provided Porat as the illustration of this point. People objected that Porat was trespassing, and I responded that whether he was trespassing or not is irrelevant to the point under discussion because according to the ruling you don't have a right to nonexpressive photography even if you weren't trespassing. (I have said that I don't think that's how the law should be and that noncommunicative photography should be also protected, but I agree that is how it IS now.)


2- Thus, non-expressive photography can be regulated and even banned just like any other form of conduct which is not protected by the Constitution. Since there's no constitutional protection, the act of taking photos for nonexpressive purposes is no different than other forms of conduct such as chopping wood in public places.

3- Considering how often the cops bother photographers anyway, this isn't some highly theoretical, remote concern. Some people said that since they had never been bothered by the police then this can't be a big issue, and I said well there are many photographers who do get hassled by the cops even in public places.

4- In order to enforce any such ban, there's no need for a new law to be drafted specifically prohibiting non-expressive photography because existing generic laws such as "disturbing the peace" can suffice.
The cops can decide that taking photos is itself a cause of disturbance or a safety issue - because for example they can say it may hinder pedestrian traffic, scare parents, or whatever.


5- If it came to court, generally the judges would defer to the cops on the question of whether your photography was really a cause of a disturbance or not. Judges will be reluctant to second-guess the cops on public safety issues when no constitutional issues are at stake. (I made the mistake of raising the separate issue of administrative deference - circumstances when judges are required to defer to an administrative agency's opinion of the law under Chevron/Mead - but withdrew that because I don't want to "go there" because it is too complicated.)

Now, if you have a problem with any of these specific points, please which one and why.

Incidentally none of the above involves any 'expertise' - this is information that is widely available to anyone who bothers to buy and read a book on the topic of first amendment rights,.