Another way to BAN photographers

Status
Not open for further replies.
JP and Pickett...

Yes, I know rudeness is not illegal 🙂
However, if a business can claim it's losing business because a rude guy is out in front of the store harassing potential patrons on a regular basis, what is the business owner's recourse? It doesn't really matter whether the rude guy has a camera or not. If customer's say "oh, I'm going to avoid going to store X because that rude guy is always out front there acting like a nut" then the business owner loses.

So I think the protections of one guy can't outweigh the protections of everyone else.

While rudeness itself isn't a crime, acting disorderly and harassing other's is. Those are pretty broad terms and I'm not suggesting he was acting this way, but there was some hint that he certainly wasn't being nice all the time.
 
DRabbit said:
...if a business can claim it's losing business because a rude guy is out in front of the store harassing potential patrons on a regular basis, what is the business owner's recourse?
Click to expand...

A good point. We can all think of obnoxious things people might do on a public street that would discourage traffic to businesses on that street.

But, it seems that not everyone he shoots takes offense, and that the stores hear the complaints from customers who are already in their business, i.e., who weren't offended enough to avoid the store.

One thing the article doesn't tell us is how many people actually decided not to enter one of those 67 businesses because of the photographer's presence. If I was the lawyer representing him, I'd certainly ask for evidence demonstrating his presence actually has deterred some number of people from shopping there.
 
The problem here is that it's being addressed wrongly... as if it were a sexual harassment case. In SH problems, perception makes the bulk of the case; if someone feels uncomfortable, it doesn't matter that the other party means to do or say anything else.

However, when in this case some women felt uncomfortable having their picture taken, the guy was been decent enough and did not photograph them.

Dunno... I'm with Amy here in that there may be things the article didn't mention (because the author didn't know). One of them is the way the photographer is perceived... and using a telephoto lens DOES NOT make him look anything but creepy.

However, he should not be banned.

After this, I'm pretty sure I'll stay away from visiting Vermont as much as humanly possible.
 
What Amy has said pretty much reflects my feelings. This is not a clear cut case. I think we should be careful about automatically jumping to someone's defense just because they are a photographer.
I don't know about Vermont or the rest of the U.S. but here in Vancouver a store can ban anyone they want from entering or even from hanging around outside the door, whether they have broken the law or not.
 
As a customer, and a photographer, I'm with the store owners on this one.

Reason: guy is outside the stores making repeat (i.e. coffee house) customers feel uncomfortable (at best), and may be a perv stalker (at worst).

Bottom line is the stores are losing business from repeat customers that know this guy is out there.

Same thing with a homeless person with Tourette's syndrome, or a vomiting drunk on the sidewalk in front of a store. They may be doing nothing illegal and meaning to harm no one, but they are hurting that store's business, and need to go somewhere else.

As a customer, I prefer places that watch out for their customers even when they've left the store. If I'm ever in this area, it would be my top choice for shopping. I think it's great PR for people who care about safety and low stress shopping experiences.
 
Last edited:
The second article that BillBingham2 posted really sheds light on the potential pitfalls of this so-called ban, including discrimination, intended or not.
The tidbit about the pharmacy could spell trouble with this policy too.

Oh, put me down for a self-imposed ban to Vermont.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Not surprised, really. Paranoia is rampant in this country, thanks to the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

Please, give this crap a rest. Bush is history, and as far ads I can tell, Obama has done NOTHING, ZIP, NADA to correct this type of thing.

Sad to see that Bush Derangement Syndrome still exists.

There should be a 12 step program or something...
 
SolaresLarrave said:
After this, I'm pretty sure I'll stay away from visiting Vermont as much as humanly possible.
Click to expand...

That's too bad, it's a beautiful place. I lived there for a number of years and enjoyed it very much. On a recent trip back I took the following photo of the market in question with my Rolleiflex. 😉

Church Street sees a lot of visitors and I'm sure it gets photographed often. I'm not jumping to any conclusions, but along the lines of Amy's comments this article does make me wonder about what is not being said.
 

Attachments

  • ar002-002.jpg
    ar002-002.jpg
    48.9 KB · Views: 0
ampguy said:
As a customer, and a photographer, I'm with the store owners on this one.

Reason: guy is outside the stores making repeat (i.e. coffee house) customers feel uncomfortable (at best), and may be a perv stalker (at worst).

Bottom line is the stores are losing business from repeat customers that know this guy is out there.

Same thing with a homeless person with Tourette's syndrome, or a vomiting drunk on the sidewalk in front of a store. They may be doing nothing illegal and meaning to harm no one, but they are hurting that store's business, and need to go somewhere else.

As a customer, I prefer places that watch out for their customers even when they've left the store. If I'm ever in this area, it would be my top choice for shopping. I think it's great PR for people who care about safety and low stress shopping experiences.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about the facts, but if this guy is harassing folks or using threatening behavior, the cops can haul him off--that does not seem to be happening. Drunks can come under disorderly conduct--not happening here.

I don't know if I am happy with businesses deciding what "customers" can or cannot be on the streets. I don't know if sweeping social problems like homelessness under the rug rather than addressing it is a great solution. Or even worse, hiding our disabled because we are embarrassed by their behavior.
 
“The bottom line is, if a business owner requests that we issue a notice of trespass, we’re OK with that. We don’t require that an illegality happened.”

I laughed out loud, talk about being industry's bitch
 
FS Vontz said:
“The bottom line is, if a business owner requests that we issue a notice of trespass, we’re OK with that. We don’t require that an illegality happened.”

I laughed out loud, talk about being industry's bitch
Click to expand...

I guess initially you could laugh... but honestly, it's not all that different from "NO LOITERING" signs being posted outside a store or strip mall.

As for the assumption that it will lead to things like discrimination, I think that's where the law is on the side of visitors. Businesses are not allowed to discriminate BY LAW. No one is going to enforce "we don't want those black/hispanic/gay/green people hanging out here for no reason other than we don't like them." And if they do, be sure you'll hear about it on the news that they're getting sued.

There was one part of the story that really made me say what I did originally in this thread. He took a picture of a woman who became uneasy about the whole thing and she asked him to delete the photo. He refused. THIS is the kind of attitude problem, if consistent and persistent, makes people uncomfortable, and makes them say "I'm not going down to that store again because creepy Mr. Photo Man is down there all the time". Business owners and patrons have rights here too. Had he smiled, interacted with his subject, been more pleasant and wasn't hiding in the bushes with his telephoto lens (exaggerating) he possibly wouldn't have had this issue to begin with.

Yes, some assumptions on my part - I just think there may be more to this story.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
... Turkey, bans the wearing of headscarves at universities. People can be as religious as they like, until they start offending other people by their excess religiosity,
Click to expand...

"Headscarves" are banned in all French public schools.

Stupidity.
 
I was harassed by a young woman in a bar simply because I had a camera. She was creepy, and going out of her way to make me uncomfortable. But according to some posts in this thread, the fact that I was a male in possession of a camera clearly makes me the creep.

Some of you people really need to reassess the things you say. "There must be more to it." Well, the articles linked were very clear that it only takes one manager to get someone banned from an entire complex, and there doesn't have to be any wrongdoing. How can anyone claim "there must be more to it," when the articles make it very clear that there doesn't have to be any more to it? If there was more to it don't you think it would be in the article? Are you suggesting it was an alien conspiracy, but that just wasn't mentioned? If the guy had committed a crime, why wouldn't it be mentioned?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom