Finally!Originally Posted by cyrus
Thomas
Finally!
Thomas
Or better yet here is a good scenario for Cyrus to wax rhapsodic for 30 more posts on... say I get a permit from the New York City MOFTB (Mayor's Office for Film and Television Broadcasting) and on the permit I say that the purpose of my photography is "non-communicative, hobbyist photograph making that will not be published". The permit gets approved, as it would. And then I go out an make my photos. A cop comes up and harasses me for photographing and I show him my permit which legally allows me to exercise the right I do not have anymore.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?
This thread is just ridiculous at this point.
This is the most soul-sucking discussion I've seen in ages.
If [a mighty if], there actually has come to pass a legal precedent which Cyrus so repeatedly but unconvincingly attests - the phrase 'non-communicative photography' is content free, falderal - IF that court decision has changed some aspect of the legality of a behavior that literally billions of people have the ability to do every second of every day via their cell phones, then the precedent will be challenged and changed.
Photography - in itself, like many, many other human behaviors - is not a crime, and if it were ever made a crime, then we've got bigger problems afoot.
Tim [not a lawyer but I know some I like][idea borrowed , er... stolen from rdenny]
You got it right!PS: Did I get affect right or did I need effect?
You need to put your surname at the end.
Steve (who likes correcting people's spelling and grammar and sometimes commenting that it is correct) Smith.
Tom 'LOL' McDonald.
Lets see, this whole thread is about someone who got arrested because he (more than likely belligerently) thought he knew more about the law than he did. He then sues with an apparently bad lawyer and can't even get that right admitting that his images are not communicative in nature when his whole case rests on that one idea. In the end he set some type of precedent by being colossally stupid.
The right he probably should have exercised is his fourth amendment right to shut the hell up. Anyone that has a brain in his head will tell you to never talk to a cop, and that includes the cops.
In the end this isn't going to change anything regardless of what Cyrus thinks. Trying to stem the tidal wave of imagery in the world is impossible.
After spending parts of two days reading this entire, and most interesting, thread, I have reached a couple of conclusions.
1. I really can't see how cyrus and JohnNYC differ in anything but semantics... Maybe it's time for a step up to a meta-level here guys. Cyrus wants all photography to be protected as free speech and JohnNYC is pointing out that it isn't. Maybe it's just that cyrus thinks that it was before and JohnNYC doesn't. Not enough of a conflict for all the veiled vitriol here.
2. I don't really feel my rights as a photographer are being violated if a policeman, for good reason, tells me to move along because I'm endangering others (which is the reason for public disturbance laws, etc.). If I have two tripods with a huge camera mounted on them along with a stand for a light reflector, and who knows what else set up on a busy sidewalk (forcing people to walk around and possibly into the street) or in a fire escape, etc. (you get the idea), then I'm disturbing a lot more than someone playing hackey-sack, and I should be told to "move along." Now, if I'm demonstrating for photographers' rights by doing this, then that's another thing (that would be protected under free speech), but if I'm photographing, even for a "communicative" purpose, I think a policeman would be justified in asking me to move on. In other words, I'm more than happy with some photography not being protected under the first amendment.
3. Photography, because of it's "documentary" nature is feared for several reasons. Bad cops fear it because they don't want to be documented using excessive force, or breaking the law in other ways. Companies and other entities fear photography because it might bring to light some illegal or distasteful practice. Some fear it because they think that terrorists are documenting targets, and want to ban photography around "sensitive" places. Many regular citizens feel being photographed in public places (even though perfectly legal) is an invasion of privacy. All these people and more will try to restrict photography in ways legal and illegal to serve their own purpose. Being able to photograph without undue restriction in the public interest is one of the most important reasons why some photography should be protected, either as free speech, or some other way.
4. Free speech, although protected, is not a free pass to break the law in other ways. While the expression may be legal, there may be associated actions that are not. You can certainly scream anything you want at the cops policing a demonstration, but what happens when you throw stones? Similarly, even documentary, communicative photography, although itself legal and protected does not protect the photographer from other crimes, say, breaking and entering, that were committed in the course of "getting the shot."
5. Common sense oftimes gets lost in the legalese, or in the vagueness of a law. For this we need well-trained and cool-headed police who can exercise discretion. This is, unfortunately, not the case too many times. I believe this is where the majority of problems stem from, not from an issue of constitutional law.
6. I will be a "communicative photographer" till the day I die :-)
Best,
Doremus Scudder
Not that I really want to keep discussing this, but the reason for 90 percent of my posts was that Cyrus kept refuting my statement that photography is legal, even after Porat (even "non-communicative" photography). It still is illegal, and that is more than a semantic point. Why? Because while Cyrus thinks you can't defend against false arrest with anything more than the first amendment, you actually can.
Last edited by John NYC; 21-Oct-2011 at 05:52. Reason: added "(even "non-communicative" photography)"
Surely, the main defence against false arrest is the fact that it's false. i.e. to be arrested, there has to be an arrestable offence.
Steve.
So I mistaking asked Cyrus in a private message to educate me on the grounds for his lawsuit against the PATH and his reply was this ...
"So how long have you been off your meds? What do you care what I do with the PATH. Mind your own goddam business."
Clearly he does not grasp that since he has made his lawsuit the center of numerous posts on the internet, he indeed turned it into my business. Let alone the business of many others. He has stated that the case where the photog was arrested for trespassing after being instructed to stop what he was doing and leave. Yet he pressed his luck on what he felt was his protected right, which he was wrong on. Then he in turn tried to sue the company for monetary gain, since he felt they must know they are wrong on account of them not pressing charges and letting him go without further pursuit of the laws that they are entitled to.
Cyrus, can you please give me the case information where this case was used as precedence in that you mentioned. You said it went to the second highest court in the country, and yet it could not be found on any of John Jays law systems as being used. You could just give the docket/case number and state and we should be able to pull it up.
This thread can go on forever. You can say all the useless things you wish about what people believe their rights to be, but the truth is far from that. If you have a law degree then you should be very aware that its all in the final judges or the jury's hands as to if you did or did not break the law. If you are trespassing, then you are asked to leave and you do not... then you go to jail. If you are dumb enough to try to sue and make money for it, then you are just another one of the people that shout fire and throw themselves into the burning building with hopes to make a buck.
Money seems to be the motivating factor in the case you have used as the main focus of your research on this. So I have to ask you if in your lawsuit are you seeking money? If you are indeed seeking money then this shifts from a fight for creative rights and turns to something far more common and lacking of backbone. Far too many people have hidden the pursuit of a cash win-fall against the state or large private companies under the guise of being stifled by them. Acting as if hitting them in the wallet is the only way to hurt them. So are you trying to make any money on this?
There are other ways to make laws change and get amendments to come about. Filing a lawsuit that has no grounds and no one standing behind it is simply a waste of money and time. Like I said to you prior, you need to simply start a motion in the community of photographers with a clear mission and goal. Also if you can actually make a clear and concise statement of what it is you are trying to change or protect, which you have not been able to do at all here then you should be able to gain some backing. Posting on the net and calling names and trying to knock people down for asking you to be open and up front about your reasons for a lawsuit that you claim is trying to protect everyone that has a love and passion for photography that is not for a commercial purpose is not going to help you at all.
You clearly get annoyed that most people do not see the point in your lawsuit and also that no one gives a rats ass that you have a law degree. Simply going to school and paying a ton of money for a piece of paper does not give you a better understanding of the field. If you want to argue that, then you are just talking out your ass. There are millions of people that are far better at subjects that have never gotten degrees then those that have doctorates in those fields.
So stop being a child when people do not see it your way. The case you are using to back your claims to us is simply not a good one on account of the fact the gentlemen broke the law when he did not leave. So anything he was doing had to stop. The judge had to make it clear that in no way was he able to sue since it was not a commercial shoot and not for any reason other then his own hobby.
You are rolling everything under one blanket and hoping that no one will ask questions that shoot holes in theories. False lawsuits costs taxpayers millions to hundreds of millions a year. This is why new laws are being enacted to go after those who file false claims and attempt to sue over them.
So I would simply like a response to these two questions.
1. What is your actual goal for filing a lawsuit against the PATH system. How is it that we are being so wronged by them that there needs to be another lawsuit pressed on them that will indeed be thrown out on account of them being a private company with all rights of a private company to judge what can and can not be done on their own property.
2. Does your lawsuit have any money to be gained by you by suing the PATH? Like I stated earlier, I feel if you are turning this from an attempt to change laws to an attempt to gain money then you are simply mucking up the system and this is not at all about freedom.
I am in no way making this personal or trying to insult you in any way. Even though you have made a few attempts with name calling and childlike antics. I simply would like to hear an educated and clear reason for what it is you are looking for the photography community give you support on.
So if you feel you need to reply with your one line jabs and random silly comments that do not pertain in any way to this subject then please do not waste your time typing. I am really curious about laws and our rights. I spent many years fighting as a soldier for the rights of others and of myself, so when I come across people trying to stand up for their rights or the rights of a community as a whole I am very intrigued. If this is something worth backing then I would give my support 100%. Yet so far there is just nothing worth putting any energy into.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks