Another way to BAN photographers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roger Hicks said:
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!
Click to expand...

I agree, Roger. And, like your friend, I don't discuss my religious views.

My insight into the French burqa issue comes almost entirely from the BBC News site, on which the wearing of a burqa is usually portrayed as conflicting with the principles, and laws, underlying the Republic.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

But, I don't necessarily agree with this. Yes, fear levels are pathological in the U.S. and elsewhere since 9-11. Which is odd, since terrorists threaten individuals, while during the Cold War we faced the physical destruction of entire nations. In excess of 3000 deaths in New York is a terrible thing, but I grew up at a time when the U.S. and the USSR were 20 minutes away from rendering their respective continents uninhabitable.

That said, I'm not sure that distaste for being photographed without permission rises to the level of being "pathological". Yes, courts in the U.S. have established the right to take pictures on public property, but that does not change human nature.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
Not surprised, really. Paranoia is rampant in this country, thanks to the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

Let's please leave partisan politics out of it. I doubt Bush had an impact on the mindset of cop in Vermont.


I think most of it is CYA. If the guy turned out to be a creep, people would complain that he was taking pictures and the cops didn't do anything.

The other part of it is the potential for the businesses to lose customers if he creeps out a portion of them. I'm sure most of the businesses aren't raking in the dough these days.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Fred,

First of all, there is a breathtaking assumption there about what constitutes a 'normal life'.

As far as I can see, this is not primarily for religious reasons, but for security and knowing who you're dealing with, especially with social benefits: you don't want to hand money to an anonymous black haystack. The main reason it's treated as a religious argument is that those who seek to wear the burqa plead a religious right to do so.

Most countries ban public nudity, but very few people try to defend public nudity on religious grounds. As soon as religion raises its head, people give it special privileges that no-one would ever give on rational grounds. Why?

There is after all no requirement in Islam to wear the burqa. It's all very well to shout 'them and us' (not that I'm accusing you of doing so) but let's not forget who first decided they wanted to separate 'them' and 'us' by insisting on a right to mark themselves as different from other people by wearing unusual clothing. I'm not just talking about Islam here. Most people are uncomfortable with people who are militantly different, be they hippies, Moslems or othodox Jews, and sometimes that discomfort builds (or reinforces) negative stereotypes.

I'm just reading a book called La République ou la burqa (Dounia & Lylia Bouzar, Albin Michel, 2010) which explores exactly this interface between religion and the state. Laicité implies freedom from, as well as of, religion, and is one of the cornerstones of the French state, so any religious organization that seeks to limit the rights of a democratic state soon finds itself in deep yogurt.

Let's not forget, either, that a secular state with strong Islamic roots, 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, or trying to argue that their religious views should give them special privileges not enjoyed (or even sought) by those who are not religious, or at least, not excessively religious.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I suppose we could ban the Amish communities in America... just in the interest of multi-culturalism.
 
Last edited:
At some point it will be determined in a court that a "universal trespass order" is discriminatory and most probably unconstitutional.
 
chris00nj said:
Let's please leave partisan politics out of it. I doubt Bush had an impact on the mindset of cop in Vermont. .....
Click to expand...

Any due respect to our former President (and your former Governor) the impact he has had with the Patriot Act will sadly be felt here in the US for decades. The right wing is talking about the loose of liberties with the health care stupidity going on now it pales in comparison to that might night slam through rewritten of legislation.

While I do not have as many friends in Law Enforcement as I used to when I lived in NYC the laws they work under have changed a LOT in the years after 9/11/01.

This sort of law would never have put on the books in the 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's. Yes we are fighting a ghost who's head is more like Medusa than the land owning states of old.

I do not like what President O has become and I'm very mad at him for squandering the will of the people. He had a mandate for change and has fallen into the same old same old. It's sad, but it's life these days.

This law seems to skirt around the legal system in a way that scares the crap out of me. I've seen a lot of way more important types wield this sort of power on silly little organizations and boys who learned leadership skills at a fraternity house that they still practice today in large corporations. The slope is getting really steep here and it just looks ugly on so many fronts these days.

B2 (;->
 
Kevin said:
At some point it will be determined in a court that a "universal trespass order" is discriminatory and most probably unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

This is the same court that just allowed corporations to contribute directly and without limits to political campaigns........dam kevin, pass the drugs son they must be really good.

B2 (;->
 
I hope there is an observable distinction between the formal right to use a camera in a public place and a respect for individuals who may not want to have their photograph taken. I tend to think in most cases that my "right" to take someone's photograph should be subordinate to any wish that person may have not to be the subject of a stranger's photography.

I prefer to ask or at least to be obvious in my intentions which gives the subject a chance to move or indicate a preference not to be photographed. In that respect, as a one time documentary film maker, my experience is that people (subjects) get used to the presence of a camera and fairly quickly resume what they were doing, or not doing, in a unconcerned manner. Or they object. In either case, their wishes have been respected.
 
Ronald M said:
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.
Click to expand...


Sure....okay....whatever you say, Oh King of Paranoia and Fear...

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time.

Are you for real?
 
Tim Read said:
I hope there is an observable distinction between the formal right to use a camera in a public place and a respect for individuals who may not want to have their photograph taken. I tend to think in most cases that my "right" to take someone's photograph should be subordinate to any wish that person may have not to be the subject of a stranger's photography.

I prefer to ask or at least to be obvious in my intentions which gives the subject a chance to move or indicate a preference not to be photographed. In that respect, as a one time documentary film maker, my experience is that people (subjects) get used to the presence of a camera and fairly quickly resume what they were doing, or not doing, in a unconcerned manner. Or they object. In either case, their wishes have been respected.
Click to expand...

This is how I work too. Out in the open with my camera at my eyes ready to go. If I see a hand sign or a "no" nod, I will not take the image. If I keep my camera at my waist, I am still in plain sight within 20" with my finger over the shutter button.
 
Rick Waldroup said:
Sure....okay....whatever you say, Oh King of Paranoia and Fear...

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time.

Are you for real?
Click to expand...

Not the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time (but maybe a just little ridiculous). Then again maybe you don't read much.
 
Last edited:
charjohncarter said:
Not the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time (but maybe a just little ridiculous). Then again maybe you don't read much.
Click to expand...

I should change that and say that it was one of the most ridiculous things I have read on this forum in a while. And I do read quite a bit, asshole.
 
Have a look for yourself. The link to my Flickr page is at the bottom of the post.

I'm the guy they banned. The irony is that I seldom photograph young women. I'm more interested in the old and disabled. I did, however, take a photo of a fellow sitting in the window of the coffee house that has insisted on the ban. The manager saw me and came out and read me the riot act. I explained that I had done nothing wrong and tried to walk away but she followed me down the street a ways yelling at me. That was the first incident.

Here is the photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4329047952/

The second encounter, is described well enough in the article. I was using a telephoto lens that day to create a compressed perspective between foreground and background. Why? Because I thought it made for pretty pictures of the snow falling. I was far enough away from the store that I didn't realize she was associated with it. She was outside smoking and, with the snow in the background, the scene looked timeless. So, I took the picture.

She became aware of me just after I took it. She yelled at me. Told me to stop taking her picture. She was very agitated. I simply said "ok" and then she insisted that I delete the one I had taken. I told her that I couldn't do that. I then turned away and left. It was obvious she wasn't interested in why I was taking pictures on the street. Here's the photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4386517442/

Also, I've since learned that the woman in the photo is the same manager who confronted me the previous time and is the manager quoted in the article. Mara, is her name. It was my error that I didn't recognize her the second time. For this I am deeply sorry. Had I realized it was the same gal I would have passed up on the shot.

The following Monday I was banned.

Yes, I made candid photos in the street. I was only trying to document the social landscape. It was my belief that posed shots or shots where they had given consent would be inauthentic. But, that being said, I did often ask for permission simply because there was no other way to get the shot.

Now, photography was a hobby. It was fun. But, I have a wife, two kids and a lot of other responsibilities that going along with family life and home ownership. I don't have the energy to fight these people.

I've put my cameras away.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/
 
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?

I appreciate that we as photographers have rights and I'm willing to stick up for them... but I just don't think those rights give us carte blanche to do whatever the heck we like and treat people as furniture. I'm not at all saying you should have been banned... I wasn't there and don't know the ongoing history of your experience there (and it sounds like this woman was one person with an axe to grind from your side of things)... however, I don't believe it was any real loss to you or any great injury to just delete the photo at her request, and it might have gone a long way in preventing all this (maybe?).

Good luck to you. Silly to give up photography all together I think...
 
She was excessively abusive to me during the encounter. Had she asked nicely, I might have thought otherwise. But, I made a split decision not to be bullied and to leave with the photo. Like I said, had I realized who she was, I would not have even taken it. You know what they say about hindsight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom