New Canadian Law

[Ann McRae]

I didn't get all of the news item, but it looks like it will really impinge on photographers rights - protect a persons right to privacy and supposed to be aimed at child porn and camera phones!

Anyone heard the details?

ann

[David_S85]

I didn't get all of the news item, but it looks like it will really impinge on photographers rights - protect a persons right to privacy and supposed to be aimed at child porn and camera phones!

Anyone heard the details?

ann

What law is this? I haven't heard or read anything about whatever you are posting about yet. Are cameras illegal there now or something??? :dunno

Anyone?

[Brett]

I briefly heard something about this last night, something along the lines of not allowing photographs to be taking publicly to "protect" the privacy of celebrities, children, and other people. Seems people with camera's are viewed like people with guns these days. It goes to show how paranoid people are around strangers with cameras, harmfull or harless.

Just a few weeks ago, I was in Ottawa and sitting in the passanger seat of my dad's truck while he went into the bank. I was taking a few pictures of some of the large appartment buildings when a van pulled up beside us. I looked over and the driver looked at me and obviously saw my camera as I was holding it up. He looked back to the backseat for a few seconds then got out. I looked over to the van again and saw two little girls, probably 8 and 11 using a jacket to cover the driver side window on the front, the back was tinted dark already. I'm not going to jump to conclusions but it's safe to assume that their dad/ gaurdian told them something about "the man with the camera beside us". Even though I'm only 17, people still get scared.

[Nee7x7]

I didn't get all of the news item, but it looks like it will really impinge on photographers rights - protect a persons right to privacy and supposed to be aimed at child porn and camera phones!

Anyone heard the details?

ann

Pretty scary stuff, Ann...

I'm not Canadian, so I don't know the details...(but I think the same thing is happening here - I think Andy complained about some new subway restrictions recently)

What might be a solution (if you could call it that) is that photographers who are legit could apply for special permits and get passes (similar to a press pass in the form of a badge) so they can shoot without being questioned?

Yeah, I know...it's like being in a police state, but what's the alternative? Get arrested everytime you try to shoot something that's forbidden? :dunno

These new laws sounds a LOT like gun control, only we can't register our "guns"!!!

Sheeesh!!!
~Nee :uhoh

[Seymore]

Yeah, I know...it's like being in a police state, but what's the alternative? Get arrested everytime you try to shoot something that's forbidden? :dunno Fight it, and set precedent for the photog's of the American Continent/World? :dunno If you don't want your picture taken, stay home... don't come out, and be anti-social. My 717 goes with me everywhere!

So many opportunities... so little time...

[luckyrwe]

I get asked:
Do you have a permit to take pictures?
Do you have permission of the property owner?
Do you have a permit for that camera?
What are you going to do with those pictures?

I hand them one of these and say "Free Country*!"

http://filemagazine.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf


* - may not apply in Canada....

[GerryDavid]

Do you have a permit for that camera?

You shouldnt say that out loud, politicians *sp?* may get an idea. They try to licence/permit everything else, wouldnt be to surprising if they tried to do that to cameras.

:0)

[luckyrwe]

You shouldnt say that out loud, politicians *sp?* may get an idea. They try to licence/permit everything else, wouldnt be to surprising if they tried to do that to cameras.

:0)
There was a fleeting thought at one time to only allow accredited photojournalists to have lenses over 200mm. Thank heavens it was only a fleeting thought.

[Angelo]

I get asked:
Do you have a permit to take pictures?
Do you have permission of the property owner?
Do you have a permit for that camera?
What are you going to do with those pictures?

I hand them one of these and say "Free Country*!"

http://filemagazine.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf


* - may not apply in Canada....Lucky, that was very informative. thanks for sharing.

[marlinspike]

Canada has it's own story, but why do a get the feeling that a lot of people's troubles with this originate from living on the west coast?

[Angelo]

I experienced something yesterday afternoon that's apropos of this thread.

I left the office early to go in search of my winning "emotion" shot. (yeah right!).
Well I decided to head over to a Starbucks located at a new outdoor shopping center. I got my "venti-doubleshot-mocha-valencia" and headed out to the patio hoping I could snap some wonderful candids considering I was at a popular location near a busy intersection. Aware that photography might be verbotten on the premises I positioned myself so that I could take pictures of the street. I knew, if necessary, I could defend my actions by stating the obvious; I was shooting out into the street and not mall property.

There was a security guard closeby but he never said anything to me even after I picked off a couple of shots.

A moment later I heard his radio squawking with an urgent voice and all I could make out was "blah blah static static NO PHOTOGRAPHS static static blah blah". Well, I assumed I was done for. I waited for him to approach and scold me... but he didn't... and at that moment we all became aware of a ruckus behind us near the escalators.

Everyone turned to see a mob of papparazzi, torches ablaze, mobbing a group of 4 people. Turns out it was Jessica Simpson, her husband Nick Lachey and 2 other women I didn't recognize.

The reason I'm relating this tale is because of the behavior of the papparazzi. They were beyond obnoxious. These celebrities could hardly walk for the crowd of them. These guys were jumping everywhere, knocking things and people out of the way, blocking their way, yelling. It was shocking! I've lived in LA a long time and I've certainly heard about situations like this and seen it on TV but I've never experienced it first-hand. And trust me, I sooooo couldn't care less about celebrities, but my heart went out to them yesterday. They were treated so poorly by these animals who call themselves photographers.

Any wonder why people posture defensively when they encounter someone snapping pictures?

[wxwax]

Angelo, your point's very well taken. However, I would add that the majority of these 15-minute celebrities crave and court publicity to pump life into their talentless careers. The hypocrisy comes when they try to pick and choose what kind of publicity they get.

Many a famous actor/singer etc. glides under the radar, because they don't court media attention in the first place.

An exaggeration, I know, but there's another side to the paparazzi story. :evil

[David_S85]

Well I decided to head over to a Starbucks located at a new outdoor shopping center.
Angelo, you might find shooting at many Starbucks is difficult even sans celebrities. Many a forum threads have had posters descibing their experiences in or even nearby one of these stores. The managers are apparently trained to ban photograpy with a vengance :gun2 , which often involves calling the cops. As stores go, Starbucks ranks fairly high up there in their anti-photography rules.

As for me, my coffee grinder and machine would need to be broken for weeks before I'd pay Starbucks' prices for that stuff (statement and opinion made by me with apologies to Andy and Starbucks' stockholders).

[Seamus]

Did you take a picture of the paps?

[Angelo]

Did you take a picture of the paps?
I tried but sad to say I wasn't quick enough to get something good. But I now have a portfolio topic for myself - "People with cameras" and living in Hollywood I have an abundant supply of tourist subjects.

[Angelo]

I'm so angry I could spit.

As I was strolling the neighborhood in search of shots yesterday I came upon the following scene:

[Angelo]

I'm so angry I could spit.

As I was strolling the neighborhood in search of shots yesterday I came upon the following scene:
After taking a couple of shots from this vantage point, I moved around to the other side to survey another shot of these guys doing their job. At this point one of the EMTs shouted at me that I can't take pictures and to get lost. I shrugged my confusion at him and said I wasn't doing anything wrong which is when he called me a "sick bastard" and mumbled something about breaking my camera. (Mind you I never attempted to interfere nor position myself in any way to photograph the girl who had suffered a seizure - I only wanted a shot that conveyed "Civic Duty")

I stood still for a while and a Sheriff's Deputy approached me and gently informed me that photography was not permitted. Upon challenging that, he said it had to do with "privacy" laws.

I suggested that he was ill informed but that I would comply. Not liking that I challenged his "authority" he persisted in "quoting ordinance" and I, being the obstinate aries that I am, suggested that if I had indeed violated any ordinace I would appreciate knowing exactly what it is and be cited or arrested. He couldn't do that. I'm so upset about this I am about to contact the City Attorney's office for clarification and maybe the ACLU (I am a card-carrying member after all).

I'll report back later on my findings.

[David_S85]

Angelo and others in this situation,

While the law actually protects photographers, shooting an emergency scene is a bit touchy :uhoh. A discrete distance (as far as you can be, really) from such an event is no doubt the better action. Their job is tense enough without a photog nearby. But what they told you is out of line, and probably legally incorrect.

Everyone should have a copy of this in their camera bag...

http://filemagazine.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

(best to check for differences within the state you're shooting in. Also, this document is now two years old)

[luckyrwe]

They can arrest you if you interfere with the paramedics, of course, we all know that. But what if the medics are camera shy, or feel they are being watched for evidence and what they do may be used against them later? Is that interfering? Can you help it if the medic has a fear of cameras?

The cop may get on your case for loitering too. When I see stuff like this I keep walking, but you can get behind a slow gawker and you are not loitering in any way.

YOU DID NO WRONG.

Did you jay walk? Block traffic? Get in the medic's light? Set up a tripod? Impede pedestrians?

As far as privacy, the guy is in public, on a sidewalk! He is not at home, in a public restroom, in a changing room, or anywhere else where he may have an extectation of privacy. He is not even in a store where the store owner would have the last say so.

If the cop is worried about HIPPA then he needs to get the blue sheet out of his car and shroud the event.

I carry that PDF in my bag too but no cop is going to read for 5 minutes. Now he can try to block you without touching you, he is in public and can stand where he wants.

Call the paper, the city attorney, heck find out who the guy is and let him know the cops did not want pictures...do they have something to hide (insert Twilight Zone theme here)?!?!?!

[ian408]

While you can photograph things in public, I would think that out of
respect for the victim and in the interest of not interfering with the
emergency workers, you'd a) not shoot so as to indentify the victim
and b) not get arrested for "interference".

Otherwise, how is this type of photograph any different than a shot
of a celeb (except the victim is probably not in a position to ask you
not to)?


Ian

[luckyrwe]

Respect for the victim? That's not a legal matter, that is cultural. We don't look at people in the car next to us, it is legal to do so, but we offer others the privacy we expect for ourselves.

I have taken many pictures where the subject does not want their picture taken. I get used to the reactions. I don't break the law.

There are those who hate a camera pointed at them for a portrait! We have all been to parties or gatherings where people dash away from any camera, and they are dressed to the nines! (I hate my picture being taken, I think it's a waste of film. :giggle )

Besides, if all photographers respected privacy, the Sunday paper and 6 o'clock news would look pretty boring.

[Angelo]

Angelo and others in this situation,

While the law actually protects photographers, shooting an emergency scene is a bit touchy :uhoh. A discrete distance (as far as you can be, really) from such an event is no doubt the better action. Their job is tense enough without a photog nearby. But what they told you is out of line, and probably legally incorrect.

Everyone should have a copy of this in their camera bag...

http://filemagazine.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

(best to check for differences within the state you're shooting in. Also, this document is now two years old)David, you're absolutely correct but as I stated I was a respectable distance and never attempted to get "in their face". I printed out that piece last week when you originally posted it and it's great but not all encompassing.

[mercphoto]

Respect for the victim? That's not a legal matter, that is cultural. We don't look at people in the car next to us, it is legal to do so, but we offer others the privacy we expect for ourselves.

I have taken many pictures where the subject does not want their picture taken. I get used to the reactions. I don't break the law.

There are those who hate a camera pointed at them for a portrait! We have all been to parties or gatherings where people dash away from any camera, and they are dressed to the nines! (I hate my picture being taken, I think it's a waste of film. :giggle )

Besides, if all photographers respected privacy, the Sunday paper and 6 o'clock news would look pretty boring.

Its not a convincing argument to me. If I was an EMT I wouldn't want my picture taken. And if I was the victim, I sure as hell wouldn't want my picture taken. Justifying it by saying "the news would be boring" doesn't cut it.

[Angelo]

Well I spoke to a prosecutor at the LA City Attorney's office. We had a pleasant albeit inconclusive discussion about this incident. He sympathized with my concern and suggested that the EMTs behavior was completely inappropriate.

We both agreed that he was probably acting out of pent up stress / frustration.
The attorney could not point to any known ordinances that prohibit photography and the ONLY reference I could find anywhere in the municipal code dealt with media/press passes that allows phtographers to enter an area cordoned off for investigations.

I will address this next with the watch commander at the LAFD.

[wxwax]

Its not a convincing argument to me. If I was an EMT I wouldn't want my picture taken. And if I was the victim, I sure as hell wouldn't want my picture taken. Justifying it by saying "the news would be boring" doesn't cut it.
Fair enough. But in a public setting, you can't legally require someone not to take your pic. That's the issue.

[mercphoto]

Fair enough. But in a public setting, you can't legally require someone not to take your pic. That's the issue.

Ok, but when someone admits that its not an issue of respect for the person, its purely a matter of whether it is legal or not, is almost like saying "I don't care if I'm showing respect for people or not". (not saying the person's attitude was like that, just that comments like that come across that way).

Why does the Paparazi have such a bad image? Because they have zero respect for other people. The fact that celebs want the attention is not a defense of their actions.

I take issue at this for the very same reason I took issue with the person who returned perfectly acceptable merchandise (cameras) to CostCo purely for the "free upgrade path" it represented. There is a difference between obeying the law, and taking advantage of it.

Put a different way, if photographers showed a bit more respect, do you think laws wouldn't be changed in the first place? The changing of laws like this are reactions to those to cross the line in society's eye. Those who think that the only thing that matters is the letter of the law (like our illustrious past president Clinton, apparantly), fail to understand that you simply cannot put everything into the law books. Judgement and taste must be exercised by the people. And respect for others is part of that.

Photographing accident victims and crime victims is not a show of respect.

[Harryb]

Angelo did nothing wrong here. There was no invasion of privacy. He couldn't be expected to stop the EMT person and say "hey do you mind if I take a picture"?

If the EMT worker asked Angelo to stop and he didn't then thats another issue. Instead of asking the EMT did a macho number and escalated the situation.

[Angelo]

Merc

Perhaps I've missed the nuance of your argument and I'm willing to debate the issue. For the record, if you view the photo you'll see that there are 7 officials present at the scene (+ 2 bystanders) and there were 3 more deputies off-camera. (The one pedestrian bystander is hovering like a hungry hawk with no objection from the EMTs).

There is certainly a fine line between interference and freedom laws and I'm not confusing them nor am I attempting to blur the line but you can not discuss one without the other.

I never came close to snapping the victim and my physical appearance could not possibly have given that suggestion as I respectfully gave wide berth to this operation.

Privacy issues aside, I still would never snap the patient in this scene becasue it just isn't in my nature but I frankly could not care less about the EMTs personal feelings about being photographed (outside the scope of interference) as he is a public employee and this was NOT personal.

Besides I was never in a position to include the EMT in question in a shot. He was simply attempting to exert a self imposed mask of authority in a matter of which he is ill informed.

"please don't", "that flash is bothersome", "please, we're busy"... any such comment would have been understandable but he crossed the appropriate/legal boundary with his statement: "get out of here, you CAN'T take pictures without a permit". it is that singular statement that is at the root of my point. I hope I've clarified this.

[wxwax]

merc, I respect the high standard to which you hold others and presumably yourself. That's a good thing.

However, what you're suggesting is that it's morally wrong to shoot pictures of people in distress.

Have you stopped to consider the First Amendment implications of your position?

Have you contemplated what great and informative photographs would never have been created, had all photographers adhered to the moral code you espouse?

Luckily, others have, and have concluded that the infinitesimal harm done to those being photographed is vastly outweighed by the benefit to all of us in a free and open society.

[ian408]

Bill nicely sums up my feeling.

Note that I am not suggesting news photograpers not shoot the scene
but instead shoot it in a way that conveys the information and respects
the privacy of the patient. Nor did I ever suggest that it was illegal to
do so.

Ian

[wxwax]

Note that I am not suggesting news photograpers not shoot the scene
but instead shoot it in a way that conveys the information and respects
the privacy of the patient.

Ian, I have no idea what that means. :dunno I doubt anyone actually trying to make an image would either. Talk about a fuzzy directive. :lol3

[ian408]

Ian, I have no idea what that means. :dunno I doubt anyone actually trying to make an image would either. Talk about a fuzzy directive. :lol3
It means you can take a picture that shows an accident victim, the scene
and those working and respecting the victim's privacy. I should have probably
added that those treating shouldn't be concerned about their pictures
being taken.

Ian

[wxwax]

It means you can take a picture that shows an accident victim, the scene
and those working and respecting the victim's privacy. I should have probably
added that those treating shouldn't be concerned about their pictures
being taken.

Ian
So how do you take a picture of an accident victim and simultaneously respect their privacy? :scratch

[mercphoto]

Have you stopped to consider the First Amendment implications of your position?

But the First Amendment is not a blanket that you can hide under. As one obvious example, you can't slander someone and claim First Amendment as a defense, or yell Fire! in a public place. Its not black and white.

[Harryb]

But the First Amendment is not a blanket that you can hide under. As one obvious example, you can't slander someone and claim First Amendment as a defense, or yell Fire! in a public place. Its not black and white.
But it is black and white legally. A person in public has no reasonable expectation of privacy. In this situation Angelo took a shot on a public street of public employees doing their job. He did not interfere with them or make a nuisance of himself.

[mercphoto]

But it is black and white legally.

Few things are black and white. Its my main gripe with funadmentalists on both the Right and the Left sides of the aisle. For example, how do you balance the photographer's right to photograph versus's everyone's right to privacy? Or, for that matter, the mere subject of respect which I brought up? Remember, I'm the guy that said that just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it should be done. The law cannot encompass everything.

[Harryb]

Few things are black and white. Its my main gripe with funadmentalists on both the Right and the Left sides of the aisle. For example, how do you balance the photographer's right to photograph versus's everyone's right to privacy? Or, for that matter, the mere subject of respect which I brought up? Remember, I'm the guy that said that just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it should be done. The law cannot encompass everything.
In Angelo's situation the law does encompass everything. He was within his rights. There were no privacy rights involved in that situation. The only disrespect that arose was directed towards Angelo.

When one is shooting in public places there are many possible scenarios. Different photographers will take different approaches in similar situations. Which approach is better or more correct? I'm not smart enough to come up with a code of conduct for others. I try to do what seems right to me and I'll let others do the same. The law can't encompass that but in Angelo's situation the law did encompass what his legal rights were and he was within those rights to take the picture.

[ian408]

So how do you take a picture of an accident victim and simultaneously respect their privacy? :scratch
Don't show their face.

[wxwax]

I keep wanting to chip in :evil but Harry's pretty much nailing it.

[wxwax]

Don't show their face.
So now we write a law that says you can't show an accident victim's face?

[mercphoto]

In Angelo's situation the law does encompass everything. He was within his rights. There were no privacy rights involved in that situation. The only disrespect that arose was directed towards Angelo.

To me, taking pictures of an accident is disrepectful to those in the accident, so I don't agree that the only disrespect was towards Angelo. Besides, you keep missing my point. I don't care if the law encompassed everything in this situation. Just because something is legal does not mean it should be done.

When Enron scandal first broke, the prevailing opinion at the time was that, while what they did was wrong and harmful, it was questionable as to whether they actually broke any laws. I haven't kept up with the scandal, and I don't know what, if any, illegal activity was found. But it brings up the point: **if** Enron actually had broken no laws with their activities, I expect few people would say "oh, well in that case...". What I would expect would happen is people would say "we need to change the laws then". That is what is happening in Canada here.

[mercphoto]

So now we write a law that says you can't show an accident victim's face?

Why does common sense respectful behavior need to be regulated by law?

[Harryb]

To me, taking pictures of an accident is disrepectful to those in the accident, so I don't agree that the only disrespect was towards Angelo. Besides, you keep missing my point. I don't care if the law encompassed everything in this situation. Just because something is legal does not mean it should be done.

When Enron scandal first broke, the prevailing opinion at the time was that, while what they did was wrong and harmful, it was questionable as to whether they actually broke any laws. I haven't kept up with the scandal, and I don't know what, if any, illegal activity was found. But it brings up the point: **if** Enron actually had broken no laws with their activities, I expect few people would say "oh, well in that case...". What I would expect would happen is people would say "we need to change the laws then". That is what is happening in Canada here.
Bill,

You have your view on it and thats fine. Don't take photos of accidents. I, on the other hand, don't share your opinion and I will take pics of accidents. I don't expect you to follow my standards and I hope you don't expect me to follow yours.

Enron was a scandal because laws were broken and a number of Enron officials have been prosecuted. If new laws are needed they will be written and debated and then passed or not passed. When the debate occurs we will all weigh in with our opinions and when the dust settles we will all have to live with the results of the debate.

We are all obligated to follow the laws of our countries. We are not obligated to follow the our differing personal value systems. I just try to the best I can and thats enough for me.

[wxwax]

Why does common sense respectful behavior need to be regulated by law?
It's just that in two posts, now, you've sort of said: "If you don't do it, you might someday be required to do it." That's coercive, and if that attitude became widespread, it would become a de facto law.

From my point of view, it's better to defend the rights you have lest you lose them. And taking photographs of someone in a public place is a right that's well worth defending.

[mercphoto]

Enron was a scandal because laws were broken and a number of Enron officials have been prosecuted.

You skirted my point. I said **if** no laws had been broken, would you say "oh well, poor employees, but management didn't do anything illegal." There are lots of ways that companies can do things that are still perfectly legal, and yet are harmful to shareholders, employees, creditors, etc. Is that ok, as long as they are working in a legal manner? This is why I say nothing is black and white. Including this photo session.

[Harryb]

You skirted my point. I said **if** no laws had been broken, would you say "oh well, poor employees, but management didn't do anything illegal." There are lots of ways that companies can do things that are still perfectly legal, and yet are harmful to shareholders, employees, creditors, etc. Is that ok, as long as they are working in a legal manner? This is why I say nothing is black and white. Including this photo session.
Bill,

Enron has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The first issue here was Angelo within his legal rights to take the shot and that is absolutely yes.

The second issue is was Angelo morally right to take the shot? My position is that's up to Angelo. I would have taken the pic , you wouldn't. We all are going to have our varying opinions on it. We just can't impose how we view the situation on each other. We won't agree. Hopefuly we can disagree respectfully and not impose our respctive value judgements on one another.

[mercphoto]

It's just that in two posts, now, you've sort of said: "If you don't do it, you might someday be required to do it." That's coercive, and if that attitude became widespread, it would become a de facto law.

You can either call it coercive, or you can call it having common sense to not abuse the law.

Why do we have unions? Because at one point companies abused their power over workers. Why did union busting come into game in the 80s? Because unions started abusing their power over companies.

Why are people starting to backlash against photographers? Start and think about why these laws are coming into being in the first place and address that.

If you want to defend rights I'm all for that. But pick your battles carefully. This is not a good battle to pick for photographer's rights. I can just as easily claim that if I'm on the ground, bleeding with my life vanishing away, I want the privacy to not have a loon with a camera snapping pics of me to post on the 'net. So who's rights prevail here?

If you want to defend the rights of photography, start talking about the ability to take commisioned portraits in public settings, like public parks. Something you can't do in Kalifornia without permits, for example. Or the rights to take speculative photography in parks, on the streets. Or the rights to photograph public events like races, competitions, parades. You don't get very far by defending what many people call vulchers of society.

[mercphoto]

Enron has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Actually it does. I suspect you just don't want to answer. Its a direct analogy to the point I was making. If Enron had done nothing illegal whatsosever, would you be sticking up for Enron, saying "some would say it was morally wrong, but it was legal"? That is exactly the defense you are making for Angelo, that some feel it is wrong, but it is legal.

[Harryb]

Bill,

I'm not going to debate the points with you. I do object to the term "loon" in your post. Now I know you weren't referring to any forum members with that term but some could view that otherwsie. Please be careful.

[wxwax]

You can either call it coercive, or you can call it having common sense to not abuse the law.

Why do we have unions? Because at one point companies abused their power over workers. Why did union busting come into game in the 80s? Because unions started abusing their power over companies.

Why are people starting to backlash against photographers? Start and think about why these laws are coming into being in the first place and address that.

If you want to defend rights I'm all for that. But pick your battles carefully. This is not a good battle to pick for photographer's rights. I can just as easily claim that if I'm on the ground, bleeding with my life vanishing away, I want the privacy to not have a loon with a camera snapping pics of me to post on the 'net. So who's rights prevail here?

If you want to defend the rights of photography, start talking about the ability to take commisioned portraits in public settings, like public parks. Something you can't do in Kalifornia without permits, for example. Or the rights to take speculative photography in parks, on the streets. Or the rights to photograph public events like races, competitions, parades. You don't get very far by defending what many people call vulchers of society.


My friend, you have effectively muzzled your own right to be informed visually about the world around you. We're not talking about a fringe right - we're talking about a fundamental element of the First Amendment.

I'm going to break this site's rules to show you a couple of images that are key pieces of this nation's history, images that your philosophy would have prevented from being taken.

I would be astonished if you didn't recognize the shots and their significance.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~policult/assets/VietNam/KentState.jpg
Photo Credit: John Filo

http://polis.warwickcompsoc.co.uk/images/index_VietnamShooting.jpg
Photo Credit: Eddie Adams


Would this nation be a better place without these images? I don't think so.

[wxwax]

"The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message."

Source (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html)

[mercphoto]

I'm not going to debate the points with you. I do object to the term "loon" in your post. Now I know you weren't referring to any forum members with that term but some could view that otherwsie. Please be careful.

If the point you are trying to make is that even thought it is my First Amendment right to call people loon's, that it is nonetheless disrepectful and wrong to do so, you are 100% correct.

[mercphoto]

Would this nation be a better place without these images? I don't think so.

Finally, an explanation as to why I'm wrong that isn't the simple "because its my right to do so."

Thank you.

[wxwax]

If the point you are trying to make is that even thought it is my First Amendment right to call people loon's, that it is nonetheless disrepectful and wrong to do so, you are 100% correct.
:lol3 Yer wicked.

[wxwax]

Finally, an explanation as to why I'm wrong that isn't the simple "because its my right to do so."

Thank you.
:andy

[mercphoto]

:andy

Thank you for seeing the point of my "loon" statement, and for showing me the value of what might appear to be valueless otherwise. I stand corrected.

Now, to go enjoy some food and wine with the GF. :)

[Angelo]

Harry I need a nice photo of a loon as my new avatar! :huh

[Harryb]

Harry I need a nice photo of a loon as my new avatar! :huh
Hey Angelo,

I'm out of loons but I have a good collection of egrets to choose from. :D
I'm reserving the pelicans for my personal use.

[Angelo]

I just got back to my office to view an incredible volley of posts on this subject. I'm impressed by the attention this issue has generated and pleased (relieved?) it has reached an amicable end.

Merc - I would only point out as I think others tried in my "defense" (?) that what happened here was not an issue of moral or legal correctness as much as it was a government official attempting to exert undue control over a citizen "under color of authority". I for one will never stand for that.

[Angelo]

Hey Angelo,

I'm out of loons but I have a good collection of egrets to choose from. :D
I'm reserving the pelicans for my personal use.
Oh no, I believe I've EARNED my loon! :wink

[luckyrwe]

Its not a convincing argument to me. If I was an EMT I wouldn't want my picture taken. And if I was the victim, I sure as hell wouldn't want my picture taken. Justifying it by saying "the news would be boring" doesn't cut it.
"What you want" and "what is legal to shoot" are different. I guess if you have a heart attack on the street you better dive into a store.

[gus]

Ok...everyone had a toke on the peace pipe here now ?

[Shakey]

If I take a good photograph... it is an accident,does that count?:rofl

Tim

[gus]

If I take a good photograph... it is an accident,does that count?:rofl

Tim
Mate...I recon i would be happy with your rejects.