Law on photography update

[BrianShaw]

This entire discussion reminds me of a law school final.

LOL. I was thinking more that it reminds me of a lawyer who doesn't have enough paying work. But whatever brings people pleasure is OK with me.

[QT Luong]

Thanks for clarifications cyrus. The only way one can establish that photography is not "communicative" is by explicit admission from the photographer. So if this issue is a real concern to you, maybe you should contact the folks who put out the "photo rights handouts" so they would teach photographers never to say so.

[BrianShaw]

UNCLE. After reading post 135 I'll concede and (although maybe not being 100% truthfull) say that I got it. This mental masturbation is making my right hand tired. Good night chaps.

[John NYC]

You're just not listening. Nobody said photography is illegal. Nobody said you could be arrested for taking pictures of a public space. The point was that if yuo're a mere hobbyist photographer, your "right" to take pictures, even of a public place, is not protected by the first amendment as the "photo rights" handouts claim, and therefore your ability to take photos can be regulated or even banned, as easily as the police can prohibit someone from playing hackey sack on a sidewalk or chopping wood on a sidewalk. As a hobbyist photographer, you have no more rights to take a photo of a public place than you do to play hackey sack or chop wood in public. All of those things are "mere conduct," and not Constitutionally-protected expression. Furthermore, there doesn't have to be specific law that prohibits public photography for the police to use against you, just as there is no specific law against chopping wood on a public sidewalk in order for the police to quite legally prevent you from doing that.

Get it? Clear??

What I am saying is that has always been the case. You never had a right to take pictures under any circumstances under the first amendment.

GET IT?

Porat didn't change anything. And by the way, they cannot stop you from photographing. You just don't get that. They have to stop you for something else. GET THAT? Why because you are not breaking any law by photographing in public.

[cyrus]

Thanks for clarifications cyrus. The only way one can establish that photography is not "communicative" is by explicit admission from the photographer.

We don't know that though it would be a reasonable guess. The issue has not been spelled out by either a statute or by court cases on how to determine whether/if someone is engaged in "expressive" photography. Certainly if a photographer says he's NOT, then he's not. But is it enough for the photographer to simply SAY that he IS engaged in communicative photography? Couldn't EVERY photographer say that? Does there need to be some level of proof? And who has to prove that he is or isn't - the police or the photographer? etc etc. all unresolved.

[cyrus]

What I am saying is that has always been the case. You never had a right to take pictures under any circumstances under the first amendment.

GET IT?

Porat didn't change anything. And by the way, they cannot stop you from photographing. You just don't get that. They have to stop you for something else. GET THAT? Why because you are not breaking any law by photographing in public.

Really? Porat didn't change anhything? Law reviews and magazine articles are written about it for no reason? LOL

[John NYC]

Really? Porat didn't change anhything? Law reviews and magazine articles are written about it for no reason? LOL

No. You never had that right explicitly. It just had not been tested. Now it has been.

[John NYC]

Really? Porat didn't change anhything? Law reviews and magazine articles are written about it for no reason? LOL

And what it didn't change is that the police could always stop you from photographing by making up some other excuse. They still can so that. They could do it before.

But they STILL cannot stop you from photographing, legally. Porat didn't change that.

[cyrus]

And what it didn't change is that the police could always stop you from photographing by making up some other excuse. They still can so that. They could do it before.

But they STILL cannot stop you from photographing, legally. Porat didn't change that.

You know john I just can't seem to get it through to you so this is my last attempt. YES if you're engaged in "non-communicative photography" (which is something Porat introduced into the law) the police can LEGALLY prevent you from taking a photo, if in their discretionary judgement (that for all practical purposes no court will second guess) they decide that your photography poses some sort of problem that can vaguely be classified as something along the lines of loiterng, causing a disturbance, hindering traffic, or any other similar generic and vague laws that are specifically designed to be vague precisely so that there doesn't have to be a specific law tailored to every conceivable crazy stunt that someone may decide to pull.

Take it or leave it.

[John NYC]

You know john I just can't seem to get it through to you so this is my last attempt. YES if you're engaged in non-communicative speech, the police can LEGALLY prevent you from taking a photo, if in their discretionary judgement they decide that your photography poses some sort of problem that can vaguely be classified as something along the lines of loiterng, causing a disturbance, hindering traffic, or any other similar generic and vague laws that are specifically designed to be vague precisely so that there doesn't have to be a specific law tailored to every conceivable crazy stunt that someone may decide to pull.

Take it or leave it.

Dude. That is exactly what I have been saying, they have to stop you from photographing using some other reason. They cannot say you need to stop photographing. Because there is no law against photographing. They can say, I need you to move along because you are loitering.

This is EXACTLY what I have been saying, and why you have not understood that is beyond me. Photography is not illegal. So no one can make me stop photographing purely because I a photographing. They would have to bring in some other factor where I am breaking a law where they can make me leave, which will have same effect.

No one can arrest me for photographing.