I deleted it. Nevermind.

I missed this before the OP deleted. As I b-tched in another thread, I have been regularly shouted at recently, both in the City of Brotherly Love and in a suburb I am forced to spend time in every week. As I said elsewhere, some people's feelings seem permanently broken, so they're not worth bothering about.

But if the cops are being summoned that's another matter, and believe me they will always be pissed off at the photographer.

Randy
 
If I were barred from someone's property for carrying a camera, I would just assume they've seen my work.
C.Hudson said:
The OP was not prevented from photographing.
Click to expand...
True. And IMHO, from a hobbyist-tourist-photog point of view, that's the main thing. She didn't because she couldn't, so she did the only thing she had the legal right to do. Why? Who knows? Who knows what's going on in her world? Her life. Her deal. Frame the *ticket*. Move on.

The Post Office? Yep, I agree, the days of camera carriers not [possibly] being seen as suspicious around any gov't buildings is long gone. We're just going to have to live with it and pushing back too hard will just frustrate us. Who's got the time?

Face it. Film shooters are just a bad seed. Interesting discussion, though.
 
I had a situation in Brooklyn once. I was taking a photo of Manhattan Ave stores from across the street, when older lady came running across the Avenue, ran up to me and said: You can't take my picture without my permission.
to which I calmly replied:
Do you relly think you are interesting enough for me to take your picture?

I was using a 35mm lens, so she would have been very insignificant to the whole scene, but my question left me without answer, since she turned around and walked away.

I don't know why people are so paranoid when they someone raise camera to their eye, but then they have no problem with cell phone cams. Go figure.
 
hlockwood said:
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
Click to expand...

Harry, my views are not mainstream, perhaps. I'm not expressing what I think the law says, but what I think is right. I believe property owners have an absolute right to decide who may access their property. It is irrelevant, in my mind, whether or not the property is commercial and generally open to the public, or closed to the public, or non-commercial. The law in the US and much of the world violates the rights of property owners when it prevents them from exercising their own discretion about who may enter their property, in my view.

I do not like most kinds of discrimination, especially when it is based on characteristics that I regard as unimportant, like race, religion, sexual orientation or identity, national origin, language, citizenship, age, possession and use of a camera, and so forth. On the other hand, discriminating against troublemakers, gang members, crooks, theives, and vagabonds doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Whether anyone else likes it or not, whether it is legal or not, I am convinced that a property owner has a right to determine how his property is used, and by whom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom