Doubtful. The laws are not there to hinder casual photographers. They are there to generate revenue for commercial film and tv shoots mainly. It forces the issue.Originally Posted by Steve Smith
And all of this was in place long before 9-11. It was not designed to prevent terrorists from using cameras.
THomas the whole point is that the guy who is a hobbyist recreational photographer is not out to seek or impart any idea to anyone else. So your question is irrelevant to the issue. He is not communicating anything to anyone. He is just taking photos for his own personal enjoyment.
Ah, and the point that I made earlier is that photography is part of observing. If the act of accurate observation is made illegal, then how can accurate speech be made? And I have also made the point, that since the authorities are harassing the photographer unless the photographer is part of a news agency, then start or join one!Well one thing that you should do is put in a little research into the orgins of free speach instead of hypothesizing endlessly:
...
That's what I do but I took a course (required) in Critical Thinking in college.
I think that what is happening here is that authorities are just figuring out how much trouble they'll get into for stupid behavior. Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief, was interviewed on Coast to Coast AM (link) about his new book, Breaking Rank. A lot of the crap police pull is based on how much backlash they will receive, so of course they make sure that they are harassing an individual instead of a member of a news organization.
The police may not bother arresting you for "Hindering traffic" or whatever other law they resort to in order to prevent you from taking photos (in fact they would prefer not to, because of the paper work involved) but they can still command you to stop taking photos and move along, and if you refuse THEN you've "refused to abide by a lawful order" which IS going to lead to your arrest. And if you resist further, you can be charged with "resisting arrest" and "assault on a police officer" and very quickly now you're in much deeper doo doo. Sometimes, the police have been known to deliberately put you into painful locks in order to deliberately provoke a defensive reaction from your body - pressing away from something sharp jabbing you in the ribs repeatedly for example - which can then be considered as assault on a police officer.
Yes. He was taking photos on private property, not public property.
That could be the basis of an interesting philosophical debate but the law does not recognize a right to "observe" as part of a first amendment right. It does recognize a right to "receive information" but from other people not from nature and flowers and clouds and pretty sunsets.
It would be sad that in order to take a photo of a pretty sunset you'd have to claim to be a member of a news organization. But your mere membership in such an organization would not be sufficient to prove that you're engaged in communicative photography. You'd still have to prove, based on the naked wrestler case I linked to earlier, that there was some idea or opinion contained in your photo that made it particularly "newsworthy" and therefore a form of expression protected by the first amdnmnt
OMG go read this thread over - the Porat case made no distinction btween private and public property. It made a distinction between communicative v non-communicative photography, regardless of whether you're standing on private or public property.
"He effectively disclaims any communicative property of his photography as well as any intended audience by describing himself as a "photo hobbyist," (Compl. ¶ 16), and alleging that the photographs were only intended for "aesthetic and recreational" purposes. (Compl., ¶ 26)"
This just sounds so absurd to me that I don't think this could be defended if challenged.
Consider the following facts:
- Photography is an art. All works of art are meant to communicate something.
- Making a living of your art or even being paid for it is not a requirement for being an artist.
I am wondering how that case would have turned if instead of using the word "hobbyist", he would have used "artist" ?
In my experience, guards are more likely to let you go or continue to photograph if you tell them that you are *not* a professional, don't plan to publish, etc.. But in this case, which, unlike a myriad of similar ones, went to court, saying that he was a hobbyist was eventually detrimental. Quite a curious reversal.
He was arrested for trespassing. He was not arrested for taking photos.
I understand your points later about his subsequent challenge of his arrest on first amendments rights.
My point is, he would never have been arrested is he was on public property because there is no law against that. If he had been arrested for some other made up charge, he could have challenged on those grounds, not on first amendment rights violations.
For the 11th time, I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with your alarmist stance. I also don't believe that anything has changed. The first amendment doesn't protect against any activity someone might do. Otherwise, anyone could just run around clicking a shutter on a digicam all day long and claim anyone stopping them from doing anything else they happened to be doing was violating their first amendment rights.
Since I publish my images in numerous ways, I am really not worried about this case for myself.
I'm quite sure I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but I feel compelled to comment that photography is part of recording observations. Listening to phone calls is "observing" too but recording them is considered to be something different (and illegal, from what I've heard, under some circumstances).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks