Re: an excellent read from the ACLU

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Sep 10, 2011.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:22:24 -0400, Bowser <> wrote:
    : The topic of shooter's rights has been beaten to discussed in the
    : forums, so I thought that this article, by the ACLU, would be of
    : interest of all of us who have been harassed for no good reason. As many
    : of us suspected, the harassment is totally unjustified.
    :
    : http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

    A couple of further points:

    "Public spaces" and "private property" are not mutually exclusive; and where
    the two intersect, the rights of property owners to control the behavior of
    photographers may vary in different jurisdictions. I was once told to stop
    taking pictures in a mall in Massachusetts, and I seriously doubt that the
    mall's owners could have made a trespassing charge stick if I had elected to
    continue. (All five of my grandchildren were present, and I didn't want to
    provoke a scene.) But different states may have different laws.

    Public employees, and especially police officers, who are performing their
    duties correctly should welcome having those activities photographed. The
    photographs may be valuable evidence against a charge of brutality or
    harrassment. If, for example, the Rodney King videos had shown the police
    officers arresting Mr King for speeding and drunk driving with the appropriate
    force they had presumably been taught to use, instead of trying to beat him to
    a pulp, most of the controversy would have been avoided.

    (Full disclosure: I'm a public employee, and part of my job involves
    photographing scenes and events for my employer - for whatever difference that
    makes.)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 10, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 9/9/2011 9:59 PM, Robert Coe wrote:

    > "Public spaces" and "private property" are not mutually exclusive; and where
    > the two intersect, the rights of property owners to control the behavior of
    > photographers may vary in different jurisdictions. I was once told to stop
    > taking pictures in a mall in Massachusetts, and I seriously doubt that the
    > mall's owners could have made a trespassing charge stick if I had elected to
    > continue.


    The 1st Circuit has repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not
    prevent a property owner from restricting the exercise of free speech on
    private property, explicitly including a private shopping mall.

    IIRC, all Simon-owned malls require explicit permission for any
    on-premise photography. If the mall cop had asked you to leave and you
    refused to do so, if the mall pressed trespassing charges they likely
    would stick, just as the ACLU states.

    Suffice it to say that taking legal advice from random internet posters
    is a bad idea. You may safely assume I'm a random internet poster.

    --
    Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
    You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing
    stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz
     
    Mike Benveniste, Sep 10, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Coe

    SMS Guest

    On 9/9/2011 9:03 PM, Mike Benveniste wrote:

    > The 1st Circuit has repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not
    > prevent a property owner from restricting the exercise of free speech on
    > private property, explicitly including a private shopping mall.


    Back when Fry's Electronics was a tourist attraction people would come
    in and take pictures in violation of store policy. The store was polite
    about it, they asked for your film and would process it at no charge and
    return all but the photos of the store to you. When word got out about
    this, people would go into the store with a fully exposed roll of film
    in the camera and pretend to take photos, then give the film to the
    store's security for free processing.
     
    SMS, Sep 10, 2011
    #3
  4. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:34:29 -0700, SMS <> wrote:
    : On 9/9/2011 9:03 PM, Mike Benveniste wrote:
    :
    : > The 1st Circuit has repeatedly held that the First Amendment does not
    : > prevent a property owner from restricting the exercise of free speech on
    : > private property, explicitly including a private shopping mall.
    :
    : Back when Fry's Electronics was a tourist attraction people would come
    : in and take pictures in violation of store policy. The store was polite
    : about it, they asked for your film and would process it at no charge and
    : return all but the photos of the store to you. When word got out about
    : this, people would go into the store with a fully exposed roll of film
    : in the camera and pretend to take photos, then give the film to the
    : store's security for free processing.

    Why was Fry's a tourist attraction? And given that it was, why would they want
    you not to take pictures? Why wouldn't they like the free publicity?

    All else aside, absolute prohibitions against photography are impossible to
    enforce, now that cameras are so small and virtually every cell phone
    incorporates one. The most a mall security guard can do is try to ensure that
    your pictures aren't very good. Which wouldn't bother a terrorist at all. They
    don't care how pretty the building is, just where the doors are, etc.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 10, 2011
    #4
  5. Robert Coe

    SMS Guest

    On 9/9/2011 10:42 PM, Robert Coe wrote:

    > Why was Fry's a tourist attraction?


    When Fry's started out it was essentially a store for nerds. You picked
    up chips (ICs), chips (potato), shampoo, disk drives, motherboards,
    etc.. They advertise heavily in the manner of supermarkets (since the
    founders were from the Fry's supermarket family). There was nothing else
    like it. Now the component side is virtually non-existent, they're more
    like a Best Buy selling major appliances, computers, televisions, etc..

    > And given that it was, why would they want
    > you not to take pictures? Why wouldn't they like the free publicity?


    Store security believes that theft rings take photos in order to plan
    shoplifting sprees.
     
    SMS, Sep 10, 2011
    #5
  6. Robert Coe

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > Why was Fry's a tourist attraction? And given that it was, why would they want
    > you not to take pictures? Why wouldn't they like the free publicity?


    each fry's store has a unique design, and they are very protective
    about stuff like that.
     
    nospam, Sep 10, 2011
    #6
  7. Robert Coe

    ASCII Guest

    nospam wrote:
    >In article <>, Robert Coe
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> Why was Fry's a tourist attraction? And given that it was, why would they want
    >> you not to take pictures? Why wouldn't they like the free publicity?

    >
    >each fry's store has a unique design, and they are very protective
    >about stuff like that.


    The 'current' Fry's in San Diego had been an Incredible Universe, not sure if
    they were related, but with a kilowatt metal halide illuminator every twenty
    feet or so, the interior is lit like a movie set. Seems to invite photography.
     
    ASCII, Sep 11, 2011
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Biz
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    839
  2. tony cooper
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    612
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 12, 2010
  3. Mike

    ACLU: Know Your Rights: Photographers

    Mike, Sep 9, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    311
    PeterN
    Sep 21, 2011
  4. Mike Benveniste

    Re: an excellent read from the ACLU

    Mike Benveniste, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    178
    Views:
    2,347
    Trevor
    Jan 31, 2012
  5. Robert Coe

    Re: an excellent read from the ACLU

    Robert Coe, Sep 15, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    295
    Robert Coe
    Sep 30, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page