For what it's worth...

bmattock said:
Gotta love that Bill of Rights. That's why the USA is the best country in the whole darned world. We rock. We really, really, do.
Click to expand...

Apart from having a national debt greater than all the third world combined, are you now or have you ever been a member of the "I don't like what you think" party?
 
Libel is more than just name calling. It's making defamatory statements that are not true. It's not name calling, or making insulting statements about someone. The person claiming they were libeled has to show that their reputation was actually damaged. Libel judgements are difficult to win.

We are photographed every time we drive up to a red light. Any assertion of privacy in public places is nonsense.
 
FrankS said:
I thought you would have pled the 5th on that one, Bill. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I have to 'fess up. I'm an evil old cuss, but I try to be an honest one.

And by the way, I haven't been a member of the "I don't like what you think" party since my early 20's.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
...........We are photographed every time we drive up to a red light. Any assertion of privacy in public places is nonsense.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, and following my common sense, there is a B I G difference when red lights automatic cameras photograph you, and when you, flesh and blood, photograph another person.

Nevertheless, I agree with you, in my words if you like them, that privacy is constantly violated by the state power authorities. Some of us may think it is bad, some may think it is good.

I say I don't belong to the violators. What do you say ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It confuses me when I see threads discussing the rights of a woman not to be photographed in the street if she would prefer not to be ... I find the reactions naive!

To dismiss her rights by assuming she's on a level playing field with the male gender so 'just deal with it' is a grossly unfair attitude ... and I'm not saying all in this thread seem to express that point of view.

Women are on the slightly defensive side of the line in society virtually world wide and have been for a long time ... it's they who are usually stalked, raped, sexualised for the enjoyment of males in sport and media generally and are treated as a resource for selling everything from dishwashing liquid to farm machinery!

In some ways the suffragettes achieved very little IMO.

... and I found the comments based on an assumption that the individual appeared to be a cross dresser pretty offensive to women and transvestites both!
 
Last edited:
Ruben, you have no privacy in public. Folks can sit around and stare at you for hours if they like. What difference does it make if they point at camera at you? It's not an ethical issue. What if everyone you encountered on the street yelled, "stop looking at me!"? Would you walk with your eyes looking at the ground all the time?
 
Keith said:
... and I found the comments based on an assumtion that the individual appeared to be a cross dresser pretty offensive to women and transvestites both!
Click to expand...

Agreed, and let's not forget trangendered folks while we're at it.
 
What about the straight men who just like the feel of silk against their skin. Shouldn't we include them in our outrage?
 
i have to re-iterate (from the nuked vs. of this conversation).
there is a point we are missing here... there is a growing public discomfort with photographers in the street and certainly that would include all us street photographers.
we are doing our self a great disservice by contributing to the already growing public mistrust. it would take very little at this point for public opinion to support a complete ban on photography in the streets. yes, currently the person in question had no legal ground to stand on however with events of late in the UK that legal "right" can change very, very quickly.
i would suggest having a more diplomatic approach next time. perhaps think of yourself an ambassador on our behalf. be firm and educated about your rights to do what you do, keep the photograph if you see fit but post the photograph here and publicly ridicule the subject??? hmmm, wouldn't have been my choice.
 
Mabel should have just said "yes, sir" and moved on. This isn't worth all the fuss. For whatever reason the person didn't want to be photographed. It really wasn't that good of a picture anyway... it was quite ordinary for "street" if you ask me... a person walking down the street. (No offense intended.)

Peace out.
 
arthur sadowsky said:
...I'm 100% with you on the subject, Ruben!

Obviously "mabelsound" (who's original thread was deleted) has no manners, it was unethical conduct (what's happened between photographer and the subject) IMHO.
Click to expand...

Ruben said:
you took advantage of being a male vis a vis a woman, and enforced your wish. Then you published a thread at RFF in which you presented yourself as the vyctim
Click to expand...

I must agree that my position here, in posting the photo, though legally defensible, is not entirely ethically and morally defensible, and in retrospect I suppose that it would have been better for me not to have posted the photo here. I don't consider it a great moral lapse, though, mostly because the subject accosted me with outright lies in an effort to intimidate me. In addition, if she is indeed a photojournalist, and I believe she probably is, she knows better. I don't react well to intimidation, and I admit there was something of the vindictive in my response (e.g., posting it here). I may have annoyed her, but I did nothing to harm her, and her response was to threaten and berate me with a bunch of authoritarian crap. It was tit for tat, nothing to be proud of, but no great occasion for shame, either.

But you know what, Ruben? Your argument is nonsense, and your assumption that I "enforced my wish" as a male is insulting, not to mention sexist. The woman in question was larger than me, more aggressive than me, and more assertive than me, and it's wrong of you to assume that she was helpless under the commanding power of my masculine dominance. Furthermore, I never claimed here to be a victim of anything, and posted because the whole situation was funny. And my taking the photo of her had no sexual intent whatsoever. Indeed, most of the photos I took this week--four rolls--are of men, as you can see once I get them together as a flickr set. I simply shot people who looked interesting--and as I said in the deleted thread, I do this because I love people, and find their unguarded expressions interesting and moving. This is the appeal of street photography. When I see the street photos of people who are really good at it, I respect people more, I care about people more, and I notice people more.

The thing that gives me pause, in retrospect, is the fact that this person was probably a bit crazy, and if this is the case, I hate to have made her life worse for that moment. But the male-female argument is bunk.

As for arthur's accusation that I have no manners, I'll only respond that manners are overrated. Violence is a sin, but impoliteness is what makes the world go around. Bring it on!
 
Gumby said:
What about the straight men who just like the feel of silk against their skin. Shouldn't we include them in our outrage?
Click to expand...



A lot of cross dressers are 'straight men' with wives families etc ... so you assume cross dressing and homosexuallity are one and the same maybe?

As I said ... naive!
 
Pickett Wilson said:
.... What difference does it make if they point at camera at you?..........
Click to expand...


For our very good luck in clarifying this difference, Mabelsound has given us the gift of a golden example to remember.

a) A person is photographed on the streed by an anonymous-to-her photographer at very close range.

b) Her photo is publicly published (at RFF !).

c) A public sexist circus follows in written words.

Don't you, Wilson, feel there is a difference? Had you liked this woman be your doughter, wife or sister ?

Cheers,
Ruben
 
In real life, it could have been a bunch of construction workers making lewd remarks at a woman who passes by. It's happened. To my wife and to my sister. The wife would just smile at them and move on. My sister usually whistled back at them!

But by all means, ask permission before you take any photo if it makes you feel better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom