Another way to BAN photographers

Status
Not open for further replies.
JohnTF said:
How hard were you looking. ;-)

WiFi is still a developing thing down here, plus I did not hook up with the people I was looking for, so I did little shooting, though, I put up some shots today and a few months ago.

I have improved my knees a bit with some exercise in the pool, but I have a few days to make some photos. ;-)

It is much easier for me to work with a friend down here, better yet a woman friend. I shot people and kids a lot in Uruapan on previous trips, and no one reacted with more than a smile.

I would be pretty brassed off with a reaction of the type in this thread, but especially for a single male, you are at risk of all kinds of labels.

I would think the businesses would simply put up signs by the door if they did not wish to permit photography within, much as I have a "No Trespassing" sign on my garage, makes things clear there.

J
Click to expand...

I admit I wasn't looking that hard. Were the people and kids eating 'carnitas' in Uruapan? Maybe that is why they were smiling.
 
Someone should put a book together

Someone should put a book together

With photos that made it to flickr or wherever, but were requested to be deleted, along with their stories.

For me, the photo is nothing special, and most of his other photos have subjects in them who look surprised, with a WTF look on their faces, kind of like that Bangkok flickr set.

Ray has a great story (haven't seen the photo) of taking the shot of the woman in the limo, then running into some cops who were also photographers. Great story.

There must be others out there ...

jsrockit said:
Yeah, this is your best photo IMHO. I'd have a hard time deleting that as well. I mean, it is actually a very respectful photo, not creepy. However, some people will never get why you are photographing them. Some people just don't get art in general.
Click to expand...
 
huh

huh

I could understand if he quits taking photos of people without their permission, but there's a whole world of photography out there that doesn't involve these types of situations.

Pickett Wilson said:
Well, they were successful this time. The photographer put away his cameras. Which means the next photographer will have an even harder time. That's how rights are taken away.
Click to expand...
 
I'm confused

I'm confused

So is he banned from walking on the public street, or just banned from entering the stores?

sepiareverb said:
The interior of the stores are private property, yes. But this is not a mall as one might think of it, it is a public road which has been blocked off from vehicle traffic. This is a public space in every possible meaning of the word- and in fact used for all kinds of public events including a very large Jazz fesitval, where many people use cameras. There is a mall on Church Street, the Burlington Marketplace, but Church Street is a public plaza of sorts.
Click to expand...
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bill,

Yeah. In the early 70s I lived on the other side of the Clyde from Holy Loch (British nuclear submarine base) - a prime target.

It's confluence of interest. Governments need an external enemy; newspapers need shock value; unscrupulous employers need a frightened workforce.

As for hysterical overreaction, two or three years back I was taking pictures of a municipal camp-site for www.semiadventuroustraveler.com. A woman came out of a caravan, VERY angry, and said, "Are you taking pictures of my property?"

I said politely, "No, I don't think so. Just of the facilities over there" (indicating the shower/toilet block). "The corner of your caravan might be in the picture but I doubt it."

She became angrier and said, "You have no right to photograph my property."

I replied, "How do I know what is your property? And actually, I have every right to photograph anything from a public highway."

She became incandescent with rage so I walked away. Was I going to delete a picture which didn't even have her in it? Or her bloody caravan? Hardly.

As I say, society is not obliged to submit to the whims of the hysterical.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

And here were have a perfect analog for what happened in Vermont. Except in Vermont, the hysterical have banded together to deny everyone else their First Amendment rights.
 
I am guessing this is all happening in a mall.

Malls are serial repetitions of each other, all exactly the same -- that we can all agree.

In the early 2000s when I stood on a road in Utah near SLC, I could not help this serial environment, and I thought:
"You get serial killers from a serial society"
​
Later in the 2000s, I drove a concrete mixer truck in Geogia expecting fully to work on building factories to rebuild the economy -- instead I poured curbs and foundations for malls and subdivisions. They represent obsessive consumption, and not the necessary production to sustain an economy.

But what was saddest was looking at the lost wild animals, especially ground birds, who were wandering aimlessly and in total panic with their young around the construction sites that used to be their homes. Rednecks with camouflage baseball caps and illegal workers from Latin America would build huge piles from the trees they tore down with bulldozers, creating fires 50 to 100 feet high. And they showed that they obviously loved their work.

Basically, I am saying that malls, as well as sub-divisions, are in no way representative of normal society, and from my experience represent cruelty and corruption-- and as a result, not a great place for photography.

And definitely not a place to expect your rights to be respected.
 
Last edited:
ferider said:
It's one thing to be socially "shunned", quite another to have local police enforce it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Merchants banding together to push around people around they simply "don't like" is bad enough, but using the police as their own band of armed thugs is an abuse of legal process on its face.

By involving the police, this "Universal trespass" ticket effectively represents a bill of attainder and these merchants, a Star Chamber. I hope the ACLU rips these jokers and especially their toadies in the Police a new one that costs them plenty.
 
I wonder

I wonder

if the local police were involved in the formation of this Burlington "trespass" policy.

Often they're invited and present, and support what Neighborhood and Business Watch type groups decide. Below is what some folks in Boston are doing.

It was reported that there are about 100 people on that list, and most committed crimes. Wonder what the others did to get on the list, besides Dan, and the guy with the employer dispute who wouldn't leave. I'd guess that the reasons may have been significantly borderline dangerous or anti-business enough that juries would possibly not find reason to not lump those cases in with the others.

...
Business members of the Peabody Square/Ashmont area in Dorchester along with St Marks Area Main Streets met this morning to discuss implementing an organized Business Watch in their local business district. "The idea has been tossed around for awhile but unfortunately has never taken hold" said Dan Larner, Executive Director of SMAMS. A number of recent incidents along with an increase in loitering, aggressive panhandling, skatebording and lack of cleanliness has prompted business owners, managers and employees to rally around the idea that an organized group of individuals can make an area inhospitable to crime and more hospitable for business. The Neighborhood Watch Unit has also presented to Hyde Park and Dudley Square Main Streets. We, along with our many partners, look forward to getting this preventative program off the ground!
...

ferider said:
It's one thing to be socially "shunned", quite another to have local police enforce it.

I was browsing "The Americans" last night, and thought how (to me) surprisingly modern Frank's photography still is.

Some might think Burlington is a small and rural community. It's not. Quite close to NYC, and the location of modern, high tech industry. Which is why I've been there more than once.

Roland.
Click to expand...
 
After a conflict on the Wikipedia with another editor where the other editor used "mathematical rationalization" as an argument for censoring my work, I started to research rationalism.

Well, rationalism is devoid of emotion, and includes only calculating thought without respect to the outside world. Foremost it lacks morality.

I traced the issue back through ancient Rome to Greece: Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle.

Plato and Socrates supported an oligarchy, which is the Roman equivalent to (and plan for) Fascism.

Aristotle was more liberal and actually created Western justice by saying that each court case has to be judged in its own context. Well, we rarely see that, unless you are rich like OJ, so Aristotle is basically ignored, bringing us back to Fascism.

I also looked at the Christian Reformation, which centered around Calvinism. Calvinism is I am sure where homophobia in the West comes from, and Calvinism is the absolutist predeterminalism that says that everything that happens is God's will, though predeterminalism is usually presented as Athiest (disproved by stuff like chaos theory).

My understanding is that many of the people of the Catholic "cloth" are in fact gay.

What I am trying to say here is that there is a single basic issue at work here that goes back to the birth of Western culture. Really spiritual men of that time such as Christ and Buddha attempted to reverse the trend, but Christ, in particular, simply became a vehicle for it.

The issue had hand, I believe, is another extension of the concept: Roman Capital_(CLICK).
 
Last edited:
I saw that movie

I saw that movie

Angels and Demons, the Illuminati? I'd give it about 3 stars.

Would have been better if the actor from the original movie, and Chanel ad were in this one.

john_van_v said:
After a conflict on the Wikipedia with another editor where the other editor used "mathematical rationalization" as an argument for censoring my work, I started to research rationalism.

Well, rationalism is devoid of emotion, and includes only calculating thought without respect to the outside world. Foremost it lacks morality.

I traced the issue back through ancient Rome to Greece: Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle.

Plato and Socrates supported an oligarchy, which is the Roman equivalent to (and plan for) Fascism.

Aristotle was more liberal and actually created Western justice by saying that each court case has to be judged in its own context. Well, we rarely see that, unless you are rich like OJ, so Aristotle is basically ignored, bringing us back to Fascism.

I also looked at the Christian Reformation, which centered around Calvinism. Calvinism is I am sure where homophobia in the West comes from, and Calvinism is the absolutist predeterminalism that says that everything that happens is God's will, though predeterminalism is usually presented as Athiest (disproved by stuff like chaos theory).

My understanding is that many of the people of the Catholic "cloth" are in fact gay.

What I am trying to say here is that there is a single basic issue at work here that goes back to the birth of Western culture. Really spiritual men of that time such as Christ and Buddha attempted to reverse the trend, but Christ in particular simply became a vehicle for it.

The issue had hand, I believe, is another Roman concept: Capital.
Click to expand...
 
ampguy said:
Angels and Demons, the Illuminati? I'd give it about 3 stars.

Would have been better if the actor from the original movie, and Chanel ad were in this one.
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble! Modeling the situation (meaning human society) accurately helps predict where things will go right or wrong -- this being vital to successful photography (like mine -- working under a pseudonym).

Once the predictions become accurate you can publish the model; Aristotle only gave is the hypothesis -> theory process, which is the obviously flawed scientific method.

The "Empathy Model (CLICK)" hinges on the empathic neurons; as much as 25% of humanity is operating w/o them, which explains the problems we have.

Plato was a certain example, as are the homophobes, as are the mall operators in question!
 
DRabbit said:
Dan/Redjetta...

I appreciate hearing your side of the story, and seeing some of your photos.

What I don't understand is why you refused to delete the photo of the young woman... against her wishes keeping it and then going and posting it on the internet. That may be your legal right to do, but was it really the right thing to do?
Click to expand...


I don't think it was unreasonable to not delete the photo. I wouldn't do it if I was photographing in a public place. I would however stop photographing someone if they were uncomfortable or it was against their wishes, wether it's my right or not. But that would be my own personal judgement call. I don't wish to make anyone uncomfortable and I do genuinely respect others. But if I already got the shot, too bad. I don't use the delete button, because it doesn't exist. And even if I was shooting digital, too bad still.

On that note, what would be expected if he was shooting film?
 
I really do not think that all the merchants have banded together more than a few having pushed their will on the masses and got a special type of double super secret probation upgraded to a "You Ain't Welcome 'Round Here No More!".

But a question that really bugs me is that I do not think that a mall is public property, it's private no?

B2 (;->
 
BillBingham2 said:
But a question that really bugs me is that I do not think that a mall is public property, it's private no?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as public property; there is the public domain.

The mall, as all malls and all property, was once the public domain until an immigrant/colonialist took it from his own from the public which was probably at that time native.

All property is annexed (read stolen) from the public domain. In semi-recent history, the lawyes of Philly, including fat Ben Franklin, annexed all of Western Penny converting the pioneering farmers into serfs -- its an age old story and it involves drawing lines on maps. This led to the Whiskey Rebellion.

(I hate to say this but you guys don't do much reading causing so much speculation; too much TV perhaps. Understanding the World you live in would help your photography, which, God knows...)

Well anyway, intellectual property is called that because it follows the real estate rules of annexation. Publicly accessible information, often in a software context, becomes private property -- even the radio waves they sent through your body to your car radio.
 
john_van_v said:
Sorry to burst your bubble! Modeling the situation (meaning human society) accurately helps predict where things will go right or wrong -- this being vital to successful photography (like mine -- working under a pseudonym).

Once the predictions become accurate you can publish the model; Aristotle only gave is the hypothesis -> theory process, which is the obviously flawed scientific method.

The "Empathy Model (CLICK)" hinges on the empathic neurons; as much as 25% of humanity is operating w/o them, which explains the problems we have.

Plato was a certain example, as are the homophobes, as are the mall operators in question!
Click to expand...

You mean, like economists?

Truly accurate predictions are rare except in very simple situations. The best we can do is a good guess. Even then, things change with time, i.e. are emergent. The difference between a random or chaotic scenario and an infinitely complex rational scenario is not worth arguing about.

Cheers,

R.
 
gnuyork said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTF
Interesting the way this thread developed, with unsupported conclusions and assumptions not based in fact.

Either there is a right to photograph people in public, or there is not.

I agree with this.
Click to expand...

I agree too; there is a right, but...

You can't have it because despite our rights we live in an oligarchy, apparently, because we use the Roman capital structure that is based on Plato's republic. (I am sure Asia and Africa have equivalent structures.)

You are not in the upper-upper class and are therefore required to specifically do as you are told by the "guardians" (Plato) or security guards (the mall). That is, unless you can manage a slave-rebellion like Spartacus, the Yankees, Shays, and Ho Chi Minh did!

(Which is unlikely from what I have seen so far.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom