I deleted it. Nevermind.

sepiareverb

sepiareverb

genius and moron
Local time
4:25 AM
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
8,428
I thought there might be some serious discussion about these changes in Civil Liberties in the US. But alas no.

Apparently we're the villains, f@ck even those of us with cameras think so.
 
That was a serious discussion. Me not agreeing with you didn't need to end it.

I would urge you to really think about why she might have gotten so angry. Understanding another person has merit
 
Right when I was writing a comment.... :)
agreed, probably would have turned ugly anyway, there are too many people afraid of their own shadow, let alone someone walking around with a camera.
 
ha, sepiareverb. I was wondering where my comment went - I hit *post* and it went *poof*. Funny thing, I agreed ... it ended with "Let's face it, we're just bad people." *joke*

Anyways, hope your experience at the back door didn't ruin your shooting day with friends. ~ cheers
 
Deap Fried, in reply to your comment:

I really dont see how this has anything to do with street photograpy, he was taking a picture of a store, which I dont see as menacing....

Im sure the person would have reacted the same if you were taking a landscape, and her property was somewhere in the background, or nowhere near it...
"I'm not interested in any art that makes the subject scared enough to call the police. "
There are plenty of people that would be scared enough to call the police no matter what you were doing.. whether it were art or walking down the street..
That's the problem, your insecurities ( or whatever it might be )should not allow you to call the police on me, and have them issue anything....
 
But if people are that scared do we not have some kind of obligation to ease their fears after the fact? There is a reason that people get freaked out like this, the world we live in has so many dangers both real and imagined. She imagined one, but is it her fault for being afraid?
 
Your right, I have a friend that's deathly afraid of cats..
Lets just get rid of them all to ease his fears.... :)
 
Bob sorry you deleted . Your story is shocking even to someone in the uk with our own portrayal of the press and photographers in general as a threat. The odd law of trespass that can be issued when no offence has been committed by anyone sounds completely nuts and I am surprised there has not been a campaign against it.

My understanding is as yours that photography in a public place or from a public place is totally legal and even morally justified . This law makes a nonsense of that.

Chris
 
I think your thread would have ended up with plenty of discussion of civil liberties. You have to give these things time.

I believe every person has a private and personal right to restrict anyone they want from entering their property, whether commercial or private, but I don't think they have a right to stop someone from recording on film what their eyes can plainly see from outside the property.

I also don't believe, however, that anyone has the right to use the threat of State-sponsored violence (criminal charges, in this case) against anyone who hasn't actually harmed them.
 
to separate the two issues; yes I think the police trespass notice is insane. I'm far more interested in why she would go that far. I wouldn't feel good about making someone react that way. It's easy to just get mad at her, but I'd rather contemplate the deeper issues. Hence the serious discussion.
 
loquax ludens said:
I think your thread would have ended up with plenty of discussion of civil liberties. You have to give these things time.

I believe every person has a private and personal right to restrict anyone they want from entering their property, whether commercial or private, but I don't think they have a right to stop someone from recording on film what their eyes can plainly see from outside the property.

I also don't believe, however, that anyone has the right to use the threat of State-sponsored violence (criminal charges, in this case) against anyone who hasn't actually harmed them.
Click to expand...

Not so fast. If a commercial property is generally open to the public, but a particular individual is barred from entering that property, there had better be a legitimate reason for doing so. Discrimination, normally a neutral word, obviously cannot be based upon the race, religion, etc., etc., of the individual barred. For that reason, I'm surprised that the action of the police in such cases has not been challenged in the courts. It would seem that the owner of the property would have to show cause.

Harry
 
C.Hudson said:
Posts like the one the OP deleted are very common. It's been the same way for a long, long time, blame Bush or blame the terrorists. Learn to live with it.
Same thing with "I got ripped off on eBay" posts. I don't understand the point.
Click to expand...

I would have thought the point was obvious. Bush, terrorists or eBay ripoffs have nothing to do with it. If an individual is prevented from exercising an apparently legitimate right, the action has to pass legal scrutiny. (See my previous post.)

Harry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom