Not specific enough.Originally Posted by cyrus
Steve.
Not specific enough.
Steve.
I never once insulted you and if you want I can post all the private messages here to prove it. You are clearly not in understanding of what it is you are trying to convey to this forum. I am sorry that there are many people on here that have a far greater understanding of the legal rights as a photographer. Even though you have been trained in law, it does not mean you know them all (no one does).
Not sure what you are trying to express by saying I should be on meds. Nor will I bother trying to find that out. I simply wanted to know what your legal grounds for your claims and lawsuit are.
You do not have any idea and that is now very evident. You communicate like a person that is flustered by the fact that no one sees your view or honestly cares about your lawsuit.
I will leave you to your one liners and uneducated statements about laws that you say you are trained in. I am aware that facts speak clearer then rants and rambles on the internet by someone that has zero of an idea what they are talking about, yet are trying to scream loudest to prove they are right.
So act like an adult and answer the questions people have asked that are grounded in reality. You mention name calling all over the threads and honestly most of it is done by you.
Steve, I think you are "banging your head on the wall" by repeatedly asking this question. If I recall correctly (I'm not willing to go back through the posts to verify) this has been asked several times before with no succinct answer. I think (read that THINK) that cyrus is calling court decisions a "law".
Last edited by BrianShaw; 21-Oct-2011 at 08:45. Reason: Oh... you beat me to it in posts 250 and 251. :)
Nothing he has posted has been. Steve you and I are very aware that this is now just going to go on and on without Cyrus being able to back his claims with clear and defined court findings, or cite any laws.
He can't even come up with another case other then this Porat case to show events relating to the injustices he is claiming that we all face.
I am done with this here. I have better things to do.
I.E. listen to a homeless man on 1st Ave. rant about the sky is falling with a stronger basis of facts then this thread has.
You could be right. I have read the court ruling on the Porat case as originally posted and can only conclude that it was dealt with very reasonably.
Someone who was trespassing got charged with trespassing. The fact that he was photographing the building had no bearing on the case other than to attract the attention of the security guards which was then escalated to include the police.
Whilst the security guards were wrong to say he could not photograph from a public place, they were within their rights to tell him he couldn't do it on their property.
I don't know what the rules on citizen's arrest are in the US. In the UK, trespass is not a criminal offence so you could not hold someone on a citizen's arrest for that. The UK guidelines are that a citizen's arrest can only be used for serious offences, not something minor. Most members of the public will not know this but I would expect security guards to have a basic knowledge of this.
Steve.
Court decisions are most certainly laws. Their decisions apply not just to the parties involved in the dispute but to all others within the court's jurisdiction.
Not specific enough for what? I am not getting your point.
Like I keep saying, cops get in the face of photographers all the time. They do so relying on a variety of justifications,
Maybe to a lawyer and judge they are. And maybe to all of us they are also. I won't argue that because I know they are "something important".
My point (and maybe Steve's point too) is that a cop can't arrest us and a DA can't press charges for doing something that violates an obscure court ruling that isn't codified in some sort of law/statute at a lower level. What would be written on the (whatever the document is called) specifying what we'd be arrested and tried for - "photographing without to communicate"; "engaging in communicative photography but without an audience"; "engaging in communicative photography but with an audience but no real or meaningful message"?
You seem to say that this can happen. All we are asking is what law are we violating. So far it seems like "not moving along when ask to move along". That is not a law prohibiting photography.
Maybe I'm just too simple mineded, but I'll go back to what I said earlier - I can't see the practical threat. As a reasonable man who photographs things, if a cop asks me to move along I'm not going to insist on my "rights" because I know I'll get hit on the head with a flashlight faster than I'll get arrested. Now... if the image is a potential Pulitzer prize winner... but how many of those has any of use seen?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Again, the particulars of the Porat case are not relevant. Whether he was trespassing or not (Not, actually, because he was never even tried let alone convicted for that) doesn't make a difference for the purpsoes of this discussion.
The court's assertion that non-communicative photography is not protected by the first amendment is in no way at all dependent on whether you're trespassing or not. Even if you're in a totally and completely public place, you have no right to take non-communicative photos. Thats the point being discussed here.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks