I have a hard time wading through all this because it is to long!
But when you say : So, the trespass was irrelevant (perhaps) to that assertion which has potential ramifications. It was not irrelevant to the case.
That's all I need to see.
Yes, whether Porat was trespassing or not is irrelevant to the point we're discussing, which is the constitionality of non-public photography. Under the law as it exists, he can be banned from taking photos EVEN IF HE WAS NOT TRESPASSING.
I really don't know how else to say that. It doesn't matter if he was trespassing or not. that was in no way at all ever in the least bit determinative in the issue we're talking about here.
So let me make my points as clear as I can again:
1- Whether you're trespassing on private property, or whether you're standing on public property, you do not have a right to take non-communicative photographs.
Porat was not the first case to say that, it is the the most cited, and was affirmed on appeal.
Now regarding your view that this is pre-cancerous or cancerous or has already killed us: is a matter of opinion. My only point on that is that now,
2- In order for any ban on non-communicative photography to be enforced by the police, there is no need for any particular new law to be enacted which specifically declares photography itself to be a crime, because a number of generic existing laws can be interpretted to apply in a manner that bans non-communicative public photography.
Similarly, if the courts decide that twirling turtles whilst riding your unicycle is not constitutionally protected, there doesn't THEN need to be a law passed specifically banning twirling turtles on your unicycle. The EXISTING 'public disturbance' or 'safety' laws can be used to ban twirling turtles whilst riding unicycles.
Bookmarks