Law on photography update

[BrianShaw]

Okay let me break this down into kindergarten level law for you.

I find that very useful. Thanks!

[cyrus]

Well folks, This was fun!

[BrianShaw]

The End?

[cyrus]

You seem now to have abandoned the assertion that this is a matter of legal standard and are instead saying what you think judges "tend" to do in practice. You are entitled to your opinion on how judges go about assessing witnesses and facts, but let me suggest that most judges are acutely aware of the fact a major part of their job is to come to an independent judgment about the facts. In any any event, a significant part of your argument now seems to come down to a sociological assertion, of questionable validity, about how judges do their jobs.

No sorry there are many many instances in US law that judges do NOT substitute their own independent judgment. I don't want to go off on a total tangent but the idea that judges must defer to the determinations of administrative agencies for example, which decide whether something poses a "public hazard" as defined in a statute for example, is not a "sociological" assertion by me - it is a legally recognized and much-commented upon legal obligation. And this is something I am simply not going to get into deeper because my fingers are flling off!

[r.e.]

No sorry there are many many instances in US law that judges do NOT substitute their own independent judgment. I don't want to go off on a total tangent but the idea that judges must defer to the determinations of administrative agencies for example, which decide whether something poses a "public hazard" as defined in a statute for example, is not a "sociological" assertion by me - it is a legally recognized and much-commented upon legal obligation. And this is something I am simply not going to get into deeper because my fingers are flling off!

I agree that you shouldn't go deeper into this for the simple reason that it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The fact that a court must in some kinds of litigation accept the finding of an administrative tribunal has absolutely nothing to do with how a court assesses witnesses and facts on a charge of causing a disturbance. For anyone who has actually graduated from law school, the analogy is patently ridiculous.

At this point, I have a lot of trouble believing that you are a practicing lawyer, let alone that you do trial and appellate work. In a courtroom, you'd be eaten alive.

[cyrus]

I agree that you shouldn't go deeper into this for the simple reason that it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. The fact that a court must in some kinds of litigation accept the finding of an administrative tribunal has absolutely nothing to do with how a court assesses witnesses and facts on a charge of causing a disturbance. For anyone who has actually graduated from law school, the analogy is patently ridiculous.

At this point, I have a lot of trouble believing that you are a practicing lawyer, let alone that you do trial and appellate work. In a courtroom, you'd be eaten alive.

"Causing a disturbance" was always being used as just an example of the various laws that already exist and can be used to bar public photography. I neve said that witnesses are not assessed etc, I said that in certain determinations, the court will defer to their expertise/authority.

I didn't want to get into administrative law issues but if city or state or federal adminhistrative agency makes a determination that something - such as non-communicative phtoography on its stairwells, for example, or the concentration of lead in gasoline, or the composition of a drug, or the emissions of a power plant -- pose a public hazard, the courts will defer to that determination. They won't substitute their own judgment for that determination without very good reason.

[r.e.]

"administrative tribunal" is not a term we generally use in the US. YOU sir are confusing an adjudicatory body with a rule-making body.
A public transportation agency or some other city adminhistrative agency makes a determination that non-communicative phtoography on its stairwells, for example, pose a public hazard, the courts will defer to that determination. They won't substitute their own judgment for that determination.

No, I'm not. There are lots of administrative tribunals that have a substantive rule-making function. The question is, how does a discussion about judges deferring to police witnesses suddenly turn into a discussion about judges deferring to adjudicatory or rule-making bodies. It's bizarre.

Your whole approach to this discussion is to claim expertise, pull rank, patronize people, quote people selectively and change the subject whenever it suits your purpose. As far as i can figure, you think everybody who has taken the time to read through this thread is stupid, naive or both. Either that, or you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

[cyrus]

No, I'm not. There are lots of administrative tribunals that have a substantive rule-making function. The question is, how does a discussion about judges deferring to police witnesses suddenly turn into a discussion about judges deferring to adjudicatory or rule-making bodies. It's bizarre.

I specifically went back and edited that post because I didn't want to go down that road about judicial deference to administrative agency determinations (Administrative "tribunal" is something I heard more in the UK than in the US - in the US we tend to refer to ALJs.)

Your whole approach to this discussion is to claim expertise, pull rank, patronize people, quote people selectively and change the subject whenever it suits your purpose. As far as i can figure, you think everybody who has taken the time to read through this thread is stupid, naive or both. Either that, or you haven't got a clue what you are talking about..

Thank for the general insults however I have to the extent possible provided links to everything so everyone else can go and judge for themselves. See, because I'm not trying to sell anything to anyone - it makes not a bit of difference to me. I just want to make sure that the next time someone gets stopped by the police for taking photos in public places - something that does happen regularly - they know a bit more about their situation than what' the standard "Photo rights" handouts hve been telling them, namely that you have a right to photography in public places and don't have a right to photograph in private places. No, it is more complicated than that:

IN summary: you don not have a "right" to take photos (in a public OR private places) if you're engaged in non-communicative photography, meaning you don't intend to communicate a message via your photographs to an audience.

You may have a right to take photos even if you're standing on someone else's private property - for example, if there is a public easement for city pedestrian traffic.

[r.e.]

"Causing a disturbance" was always being used as just an example of the various laws that already exist and can be used to bar public photography. I neve said that witnesses are not assessed etc, I said that in certain determinations, the court will defer to their expertise/authority.

I didn't want to get into administrative law issues but if city or state or federal adminhistrative agency makes a determination that something - such as non-communicative phtoography on its stairwells, for example, or the concentration of lead in gasoline, or the composition of a drug, or the emissions of a power plant -- pose a public hazard, the courts will defer to that determination. They won't substitute their own judgment for that determination without very good reason.

Well now you've re-written your response.

What do you mean, you didn't want to get into administrative law issues? You raised them yourself, having retreated from a bunch of hogwash about standards of review of police conduct.

Anyway, you are now talking, as far as I can gather, about legislatures, and entities that have been delegated legislative authority, making rules about photography in public places. That is a completely different issue, which has already been discussed in this thread ad nauseum.

[cyrus]

Well now you've re-written your response.

What do you mean, you didn't want to get into administrative law issues? You raised them yourself, having retreated from a bunch of hogwash about standards of review of police conduct.

Anyway, you are now talking, as far as I can gather, about legislatures, and entities that have been delegated legislative authority, making rules about photography in public places. That is a completely different issue, which has already been discussed in this thread ad nauseum.

Standards of review of administrative agency determinations.

See the complication is that some administrative agencies have their own "police" force. Again, I just don't want to get into this. So bye now.