Another way to BAN photographers

[Roger Hicks]

"Headscarves" are banned in all French public schools.

Stupidity.

Why is it stupidity? And is it also 'stupidity' that they are banned in Turkish universities?

This is a rather more complex debate than can be addressed with a single unexplained word.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BillBingham2]

....Yes, some assumptions on my part - I just think there may be more to this story.

The second story is what caught me that something is really wrong. It speaks to another recipient who got banned due he sued to get back wages from a store. The store did not do this immediately after the altercation, only after he took them to court.

The biggest issue I have is that there are no checks and balances on this, if one store kicks a person out, it hits all the other stores and even the parking lot. I can agree with the store and in front but the entire mall for one stores opinion seems a bit draconian (read over the top, excessive). Also there are no ways to appeal the ruling. That just does not seem fair in any way.

This is one that I hope the ACLU hits hard and loud. I agree the guy with the tele might be a bit creepy and it does sound like he has an issue with understanding how to respectfully communicate with people. But there are many of them who are photographers and other hobbies.

B2 (;->

 

[BillBingham2]

Why is it stupidity? And is it also 'stupidity' that they are banned in Turkish universities?

This is a rather more complex debate than can be addressed with a single unexplained word.

Cheers,

R.

You can not ware baseball caps in schools here in the states, thank you gangs. I think the religious issues is a touchy subject. I come down on hands off of religious clothing unless there is a safety issue. The founding fathers over here were very specific about freedom of religion and I have to say I agree. I've seen too much intolerance and radicalism from all sides of the equation.

B2 (;->

 

[wgerrard]

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?

No, I don't. The piece is an article on a web site, not the documentation of every incident surrounding this photographer. The article tells us the police responded to a trespass order request from one merchant. The remaining 66 merchants might have been silent and indifferent, or they might have organized and asked the 67th to make the call.

Likewise, we do not know how many customers have complained to those stores, or how many complained to the photographer, or how the photographer behaved when confronted by someone.

It's unfortunate you were hassled because you had a camera in a bar, especially if you weren't pointing it at anyone. But, if memory serves, odd behavior is not that uncommon in bars.

People have a right to use cameras in public places. People also have a right to say "Don't take my picture" and a reasonable expectation that a reasonable photographer will accede to that request. Businesses have a right to protect their customers from something those customers consider harassment.

Responding to someone who is upset enough to come up to you and ask you to stop taking their picture and to delete any already taken with a curt "No" and a snippy paraphrase of the First Amendment is immature and counter-productive.

 

[Philly]

Why is it stupidity? And is it also 'stupidity' that they are banned in Turkish universities?

This is a rather more complex debate than can be addressed with a single unexplained word.

Cheers,

R.

IMHO it is stupid to ban all signs of religious leanings in a public (state) school, as is the case in "The Land Of La Droit de L'Homme."

I'm an advocate of a open, multi-cultural society.

 

[DNG]

It might be a matter of his style of photography. If he is just a friendly chap who take good picture interact with the subjects after the picture was taken and offer to send them if they so wish, smile a bit, say hi to the barista express why he takes picture I think its less of a problem.
.....
In short a matter of social skill... Lack of it .

I feel the same way. It reads like he had a "Defensive Response" already for anyone questioning him. He had a "Point to make". Which worked to his own harm and hobby in my opinion.
He went out with a attitude of fighting for "His Rights". Which he has, but it sounds like he was rude when approached about his photography.

Maybe he should have become a part of Church Street by patronizing local coffee shops and the like as a back research and to allow the locals to see him as a regular guy. I know that is not always available. So, having good social skills is required. But, having a prepared defense is not the best way to blend in.

Perhaps, the street photographers should be friendly folk without being a pulpit for 1st amendment rights, unless it really necessary. Why jeopardize everyone else's rights, just because "you" want to "prove" a point that doesn't need to be proved. Unless you want to limit your rights more (like this guy did to himself). Yes, he did this to himself, by not reacting in a more friendly manor in the 1st place. He had something to prove to those people on Church Street, and he lost, because he was rude. He might have been 100% right technically, but, he had no social skills to go about in the right way. Which would have allowed him to continue to take photos.

As a sidebar:
I agree that if he used a standard lens, and be more open, instead of a telephoto lens and being stealthy, he would had much more interaction and perhaps develop a friend or 2. When I go out. I use my 28 or 35, and I will wind up talking to at least one person in the hour or so I am taking pictures, typically more. (Not saying I have the answer either, but sugar gets more results than salt).

 

[wgerrard]

IMHO it is stupid to ban all signs of religious leanings in a public (state) school, as is the case in "The Land Of La Droit de L'Homme."

I'm an advocate of a open, multi-cultural society.

There are churches that use cannabis or peyote as sacraments. Do you want their adherents to engage in their devotionals in an elementary school?

It sounds fine to issue universal statements about the "stupidity" of something, but cases on the edges can almost always be found to challenge the assertion.

 

[Philly]

There are churches that use cannabis or peyote as sacraments. Do you want their adherents to engage in their devotionals in an elementary school?

It sounds fine to issue universal statements about the "stupidity" of something, but cases on the edges can almost always be found to challenge the assertion.

We're not talking devotionals here but "visible signs".
These include veils, turbans and crosses worn on a necklace etc.

 

[Ronald M]

Don`t know the whole story, but since when can a business owner ban someone from a public street. Keep him out of their business, I understand.

I understand the House is going to pass health care with out a vote today or soon. Thats right, by declaration. Nobody can be held responsible.

You see things are being chipped away a little bit at a time and the above declaration means we effectively have no congress, only a president and house speaker and the speaker is only elected by a district in San Fracisco and not the entire country.

At some point, the people will have to defend their rights and hold the government to the constitution.

 

[dcsang]

ya know.. I see nothing wrong with what he was doing but I too think there's more to the story than meets the eye.

What I find more disturbing is the cops will issue an order without having any laws broken for a business. I wonder if they would do the same just as easily if there was a domestic dispute or a woman being sexually harassed.

Interesting story - I wonder how it would fly up here in Toronto..

Dave

 

[wgerrard]

We're not talking devotionals here but "visible signs".
These include veils, turbans and crosses worn on a necklace etc.

Then, you would agree to restrict the practice of a religion, but not it's symbols, etc.?

In any case, it only takes a moment's thought to envision scenarios in which someone claimed religious protection for offensive or dangerous dress, etc.

In any case, you haven't explained why such a practice is "stupid".

 

[wgerrard]

I understand the House is going to pass health care with out a vote today or soon. Thats right, by declaration. Nobody can be held responsible.

You see things are being chipped away a little bit at a time and the above declaration means we effectively have no congress, only a president and house speaker and the speaker is only elected by a district in San Fracisco and not the entire country.

At some point, the people will have to defend their rights and hold the government to the constitution.

Speaking of paranoia...

And not at all true.

Besides, the House already passed their health care reform bill, weeks ago.

 

[dcsang]

Don`t know the whole story, but since when can a business owner ban someone from a public street. Keep him out of their business, I understand.

There's a fundamental disconnect between the headline and what people believe he's being banned from doing and the actual ban put into place.

According to the article:

bans him from 67 establishments on the Church Street Marketplace. If Scott enters any of them, he could be arrested.

However the headline reads: "A Photographer Is "Banned" for Taking Pictures on Church Street"

It doesn't say in the headline what he's banned FROM so people are left with the impression that he's being banned from the public street (or the public "portion" of the street).

It's a typical way that media outlets use to garner attention and comments and traffic to the article and their site

Cheers,
Dave

 

[DNG]

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.

Good Point...In the USA
A Trespass DOES INCLUDE a person preventing or hindering patrons from entering a private venture.. usually by obstruction or blocking an entrance, but, other language suggests that if someone fears to pass this person, that could be a trespass too.
SO, giving this guy a trespass warning was the right thing to do on the store owners perspective. The shop owners felt he was hindering local patrons by hanging out in the street and photographing potential customers. And I would say, he will lose his lawsuit because of this part of a the Federal Trespass Law already in place.

 

[Roger Hicks]

IMHO it is stupid to ban all signs of religious leanings in a public (state) school, as is the case in "The Land Of La Droit de L'Homme."

I'm an advocate of a open, multi-cultural society.

So am I. Which is why I am against those who seek to promote divisiveness on the grounds of their own religion: "Look at me, I'm different, I'm religious, you're not, therefore I'm special."

No, you're not special. We all have our beliefs, but why does anyone feel a need to scream his or her religious affiliations at others? If not literally, then visually? I don't care what your religion is, as long as it's not actively offensive (involving the subjugation of women, persecution of non-believers, ritual mutilation, etc.)

(Obviously I use 'you' in the general sense, not 'you' personally.)

A good friend refuses to tell anyone what her religion is, on the grounds that it's a private matter. I've known her 25 years or so, and I still don't know. GOOD!

@ Fred. Go back and re-read my post. The key words were SOCIAL BENEFITS in the previous sentence. Do you want these to be handed out to unidentifiable black haystacks?

Cheers,

R.

 

[scottgee1]

Good thing that Henri Cartier-Bresson guy didn't live in Burlington . . .

Seriously, the descriptions I've read of his antics while working the street would probably land him behind bars in a place like that.

Sad that so many people seem to live with free floating fear.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Good thing that Henri Cartier-Bresson guy didn't live in Burlington . . .

Seriously, the descriptions I've read of his antics while working the street would probably land him behind bars in a place like that.

Sad that so many people seem to live with free floating fear.

Exactly. In rich countries we live in a safer, healthier, richer world than has ever existed before. And yet in some of those countries, fear levels are pathological.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Philly]

In any case, it only takes a moment's thought to envision scenarios in which someone claimed religious protection for offensive or dangerous dress, etc.

In any case, you haven't explained why such a practice is "stupid".

You think school kids should all dress the same? Uniform?

I saw a european documentary from the 1930s about that but I couldn't understand the narration. It was in German.

 

[Philly]

So am I. Which is why I am against those who seek to promote divisiveness on the grounds of their own religion: "Look at me, I'm different, I'm religious, you're not, therefore I'm special."

Don't you just love all those Tibetans with shaved heads and orange robes?

Tashi dalek.










...

 

[Pickett Wilson]

People in public places can say anything they like, but they don't have the right to not have their photo taken. That's the equivalent of "don't look at me." Besides, had he been using a cell phone camera they would have never known he took their photo. Have their rights been violated if they didn't know they were being photographed?

What if a famous street photographer had stuck a 21mm lens a few inches from their face and fired a big flash at them? Should they be able to demand he delete the photo?

What if Winogrand has shot them all sitting on a bench? Should that be banned?

There is an important precedent being set here, and a step down the slippery slope.