What's up with Federal Plaza in NYC?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by asdf@no.spam.com, Jun 18, 2004.

  1. Guest

    I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and walking around in Federal Plaza. There's
    that tall courthouse, and I tried to take a picture of it a few times. But
    every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard told me that taking
    pictures wasn't allowed there. And they've got several security booths set up
    in that area, so there's just about no area that can't be seen by a guard!
    Why don't they allow you to take pictures of public buildings there? Do they
    think I'm going to show my pics to Al Queda? Like you can't find pictures of
    the buildings on the 'net anyways. (And the security guards did nothing to
    stop the people on those open-top sightseeing buses from taking pictures as
    they drove by!)
     
    , Jun 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. R. Makul Guest

    On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:12:28 -0400, wrote:

    >I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and walking around in Federal Plaza. There's
    >that tall courthouse, and I tried to take a picture of it a few times. But
    >every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard told me that taking
    >pictures wasn't allowed there. And they've got several security booths set up
    >in that area, so there's just about no area that can't be seen by a guard!
    >Why don't they allow you to take pictures of public buildings there? Do they
    >think I'm going to show my pics to Al Queda? Like you can't find pictures of
    >the buildings on the 'net anyways. (And the security guards did nothing to
    >stop the people on those open-top sightseeing buses from taking pictures as
    >they drove by!)


    ===============
    For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
    buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
    countries.

    Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
    USA.

    You can draw your own inferences. Hope you weren't carrying a GPS.
     
    R. Makul, Jun 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ryan Robbins Guest

    "R. Makul" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > ===============
    > For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
    > buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
    > countries.
    >
    > Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
    > USA.


    I haven't heard of any such restrictions. Even if there were such
    restrictions, they would be unconstitutional without question.

    > You can draw your own inferences. Hope you weren't carrying a GPS.


    This is funny, because I do a lot of night photography and sometimes I carry
    my GPS receiver to record where I took photos. No police car that has gone
    by me has so much as slowed down for a closer look at what I was doing.
     
    Ryan Robbins, Jun 18, 2004
    #3
  4. Paul J Gans Guest

    In rec.photo.digital wrote:
    >I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and walking around in Federal Plaza. There's
    >that tall courthouse, and I tried to take a picture of it a few times. But
    >every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard told me that taking
    >pictures wasn't allowed there. And they've got several security booths set up
    >in that area, so there's just about no area that can't be seen by a guard!
    >Why don't they allow you to take pictures of public buildings there? Do they
    >think I'm going to show my pics to Al Queda? Like you can't find pictures of
    >the buildings on the 'net anyways. (And the security guards did nothing to
    >stop the people on those open-top sightseeing buses from taking pictures as
    >they drove by!)


    I live in New York not far from Federal Plaza. The city has
    gotten a bit paranoid about terrorists. I think it is
    very overdone, but it is hard to argue with that hole
    in the ground a few blocks away.

    One hopes that in time we will relax some of the silly
    restrictions like this one when we realize that it is
    trivial to sneak a picture with for example, a cell phone
    camera or to take on with a digital camera while screened
    from the guards by a confederate or two.

    Crap like this (including the ban on taking photos on
    subway cars) only makes life difficult for honest folks.
    It does nothing to inhibit terrorists who will find a
    simple way to cheat if they want the picture.

    Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it.

    ----- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jun 18, 2004
    #4
  5. Frank ess Guest

    Paul J Gans wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital wrote:
    >> I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and walking around in Federal Plaza.
    >> There's that tall courthouse, and I tried to take a picture of it a
    >> few times. But every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard
    >> told me that taking pictures wasn't allowed there. And they've got
    >> several security booths set up in that area, so there's just about
    >> no area that can't be seen by a guard! Why don't they allow you to
    >> take pictures of public buildings there? Do they think I'm going to
    >> show my pics to Al Queda? Like you can't find pictures of the
    >> buildings on the 'net anyways. (And the security guards did nothing
    >> to stop the people on those open-top sightseeing buses from taking
    >> pictures as they drove by!)

    >
    > I live in New York not far from Federal Plaza. The city has
    > gotten a bit paranoid about terrorists. I think it is
    > very overdone, but it is hard to argue with that hole
    > in the ground a few blocks away.
    >
    > One hopes that in time we will relax some of the silly
    > restrictions like this one when we realize that it is
    > trivial to sneak a picture with for example, a cell phone
    > camera or to take on with a digital camera while screened
    > from the guards by a confederate or two.
    >
    > Crap like this (including the ban on taking photos on
    > subway cars) only makes life difficult for honest folks.
    > It does nothing to inhibit terrorists who will find a
    > simple way to cheat if they want the picture.
    >
    > Just my opinion and worth what you paid for it.
    >
    > ----- Paul J. Gans


    I disagree: your opinion is likely correct, right, and righteous.

    The problem at one level is that lawmakers and law enforcers do not want
    to be perceived as doing nothing in response to significat events (of
    any kind), so they choose some relatively inocuous but visible aspect to
    manipulate. Voila! Reelection.

    Frank ess
     
    Frank ess, Jun 18, 2004
    #5
  6. Paul H. Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and walking around in Federal Plaza.

    There's
    > that tall courthouse, and I tried to take a picture of it a few times.

    But
    > every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard told me that taking
    > pictures wasn't allowed there. And they've got several security booths

    set up
    > in that area, so there's just about no area that can't be seen by a guard!
    > Why don't they allow you to take pictures of public buildings there? Do

    they
    > think I'm going to show my pics to Al Queda? Like you can't find pictures

    of
    > the buildings on the 'net anyways. (And the security guards did nothing

    to
    > stop the people on those open-top sightseeing buses from taking pictures

    as
    > they drove by!)



    Two quotes from a founding father:

    "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged
    to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

    &

    "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the
    instruments of tyranny at home."

    --James Madison

    I think that just about sums it up.
    ====================================================================

    I recently had to go to a local Superior Court for jury duty and made the
    mistake wearing my hiking boots with metal eyelets which, of course, caused
    the metal detector to go nuts. Fine-- I had to take of my shoes and run
    them through the x-ray machine along with my backpack. No problem, my socks
    were clean and didn't have any holes in them. The trouble is, had I been a
    suicide bomber, I could have just stepped through the courthouse door on the
    street side of the security devices, detonated my bomb and killed about 150
    people who were milling about in the lobby. Or three or four terrorists
    could have stepped in from the street, lobbed hand grenades or Sarin gas
    cannisters over the heads of the bored security crew and achieved the same
    result.

    Now none of this is giving anything away to terrorists who are a lot more
    clever than I am when it comes to figuring out how to kill people, but it
    does point up the real reason for such "security" measures: to make people
    feel better, to make them think the government has really done something to
    protect them; sadly, people are indeed that stupid and many even want to be
    fooled. That's OK, I suppose, but it means the rest of us are having to
    give up essential freedoms and are getting nothing in return for the loss.
    I'm also still trying to figure out how anyone makes sense of the refrain,
    "Quick, terrorists want to take away our freedom, so let's fight them by
    surrendering our freedom!"

    And it isn't George Bush or John Ashcroft or Director Tom-- had a Democratic
    administration been in power, the result would have been the same, only the
    names would have been changed to protect the bureaucrats. So for now I'll
    just keep taking pictures of ducks in the park until a terrorist straps a
    bomb on a duck's back and blows something up. Then I'll be arrested for my
    duck photos and sent to Guantanamo Bay, charged with aiding and abetting
    international terror. Quack.
     
    Paul H., Jun 18, 2004
    #6
  7. "Frank ess" <> wrote in message
    news:mXuAc.27837$...
    >
    > I disagree: your opinion is likely correct, right, and righteous.
    >
    > The problem at one level is that lawmakers and law enforcers do not

    want
    > to be perceived as doing nothing in response to significat events

    (of
    > any kind), so they choose some relatively inocuous but visible

    aspect to
    > manipulate. Voila! Reelection.


    You sound quite pessimistic - but you're right :)
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jun 18, 2004
    #7
  8. Big Bill Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:11:47 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"R. Makul" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >
    >> ===============
    >> For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
    >> buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
    >> countries.
    >>
    >> Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
    >> USA.

    >
    >I haven't heard of any such restrictions. Even if there were such
    >restrictions, they would be unconstitutional without question.


    I simply can't find any referrrences to photographing public buildings
    in the US Constitution, one way or the other.
    Could you provide a cite for this?
    Or at least a legal theory?
    >
    >> You can draw your own inferences. Hope you weren't carrying a GPS.

    >
    >This is funny, because I do a lot of night photography and sometimes I carry
    >my GPS receiver to record where I took photos. No police car that has gone
    >by me has so much as slowed down for a closer look at what I was doing.
    >
    >


    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jun 18, 2004
    #8
  9. On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:00:15 -0700, Big Bill <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:11:47 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"R. Makul" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>> ===============
    >>> For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
    >>> buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
    >>> countries.
    >>>
    >>> Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
    >>> USA.

    >>
    >>I haven't heard of any such restrictions. Even if there were such
    >>restrictions, they would be unconstitutional without question.

    >
    >I simply can't find any referrrences to photographing public buildings
    >in the US Constitution, one way or the other.
    >Could you provide a cite for this?
    >Or at least a legal theory?


    I would suspect it comes under the 1st. It is a government prior
    restriction of communication absent a compelling state need.

    It is also really stupid. It is illegal to take a picture of the
    Brooklyn Bridge (or from the bridge, the reports have been unclear).
    Think of that? Somehow there is some special dangerous information I
    can get from a photo now that is not available to my eye or the tens
    of thousands of photos of the bridge.

    The MTA wants to make it illegal to take pictures in the subway
    system. This is also to stop terrorists. It will be a $20 fine. (I
    think $20 for a first.) I gather they imagine this scenario. I am a
    terrorist planning on blowing up Time Square. I need a photo of the 2
    train so I take my camera. But I suddenly realize that it might cost
    me $20 if I get caught. So I abandon the entire plan and take up dog
    grooming.

    I mean really. If I wanted to do this I could come up with hundreds of
    ways of getting what I want. It will not do a thing to any potential
    terrorist, it will just annoy the tourists. (Not that I have anything
    against annoying tourists.) Now if they made it a Class B felony
    (whatever that means, they use that kind of language on _Law and
    Order_ all the time and they all seem to understand) and put people
    away for years, then it could affect the plans. But not a $20 fine.

    (Oh, I forgot the <vent></vent> tags, sorry. Or would <rant></rant>
    work better?)

    >>> You can draw your own inferences. Hope you weren't carrying a GPS.

    >>
    >>This is funny, because I do a lot of night photography and sometimes I carry
    >>my GPS receiver to record where I took photos. No police car that has gone
    >>by me has so much as slowed down for a closer look at what I was doing.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >Bill Funk
    >Change "g" to "a"



    --
    Matt Silberstein

    Do in order to understand.
     
    Matt Silberstein, Jun 18, 2004
    #9
  10. ESmith Guest

    It's really sad, but it can be summed up in 2 words Patriot Act.

    --
    Ed Smith
    "Matt Silberstein" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:00:15 -0700, Big Bill <> wrote:
    >
    > >On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:11:47 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
    > ><> wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >>"R. Makul" <> wrote in message
    > >>news:...
    > >>
    > >>> ===============
    > >>> For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
    > >>> buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
    > >>> countries.
    > >>>
    > >>> Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
    > >>> USA.
    > >>
    > >>I haven't heard of any such restrictions. Even if there were such
    > >>restrictions, they would be unconstitutional without question.

    > >
    > >I simply can't find any referrrences to photographing public buildings
    > >in the US Constitution, one way or the other.
    > >Could you provide a cite for this?
    > >Or at least a legal theory?

    >
    > I would suspect it comes under the 1st. It is a government prior
    > restriction of communication absent a compelling state need.
    >
    > It is also really stupid. It is illegal to take a picture of the
    > Brooklyn Bridge (or from the bridge, the reports have been unclear).
    > Think of that? Somehow there is some special dangerous information I
    > can get from a photo now that is not available to my eye or the tens
    > of thousands of photos of the bridge.
    >
    > The MTA wants to make it illegal to take pictures in the subway
    > system. This is also to stop terrorists. It will be a $20 fine. (I
    > think $20 for a first.) I gather they imagine this scenario. I am a
    > terrorist planning on blowing up Time Square. I need a photo of the 2
    > train so I take my camera. But I suddenly realize that it might cost
    > me $20 if I get caught. So I abandon the entire plan and take up dog
    > grooming.
    >
    > I mean really. If I wanted to do this I could come up with hundreds of
    > ways of getting what I want. It will not do a thing to any potential
    > terrorist, it will just annoy the tourists. (Not that I have anything
    > against annoying tourists.) Now if they made it a Class B felony
    > (whatever that means, they use that kind of language on _Law and
    > Order_ all the time and they all seem to understand) and put people
    > away for years, then it could affect the plans. But not a $20 fine.
    >
    > (Oh, I forgot the <vent></vent> tags, sorry. Or would <rant></rant>
    > work better?)
    >
    > >>> You can draw your own inferences. Hope you weren't carrying a GPS.
    > >>
    > >>This is funny, because I do a lot of night photography and sometimes I

    carry
    > >>my GPS receiver to record where I took photos. No police car that has

    gone
    > >>by me has so much as slowed down for a closer look at what I was doing.
    > >>
    > >>

    > >
    > >Bill Funk
    > >Change "g" to "a"

    >
    >
    > --
    > Matt Silberstein
    >
    > Do in order to understand.
     
    ESmith, Jun 18, 2004
    #10
  11. "Big Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:11:47 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"R. Makul" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >
    > >> ===============
    > >> For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
    > >> buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
    > >> countries.
    > >>
    > >> Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
    > >> USA.

    > >
    > >I haven't heard of any such restrictions. Even if there were such
    > >restrictions, they would be unconstitutional without question.

    >
    > I simply can't find any referrrences to photographing public buildings
    > in the US Constitution, one way or the other.
    > Could you provide a cite for this?
    > Or at least a legal theory?


    I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of the US constitution, but it
    seems unlikely that the US copyright act would be in conflict with it.
    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter01.pdf
    Other legislation may (temporarily) prevail (e.g. Patriot Act).

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jun 18, 2004
    #11
  12. Al Dykes Guest

    In article <>,
    R. Makul <> wrote:
    >On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 20:12:28 -0400, wrote:
    >
    >>I was in NYC a few weeks ago, and walking around in Federal Plaza. There's
    >>that tall courthouse, and I tried to take a picture of it a few times. But
    >>every time I pulled out my camera, a security guard told me that taking
    >>pictures wasn't allowed there. And they've got several security booths set up
    >>in that area, so there's just about no area that can't be seen by a guard!
    >>Why don't they allow you to take pictures of public buildings there? Do they
    >>think I'm going to show my pics to Al Queda? Like you can't find pictures of
    >>the buildings on the 'net anyways. (And the security guards did nothing to
    >>stop the people on those open-top sightseeing buses from taking pictures as
    >>they drove by!)

    >
    >===============
    >For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
    >buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
    >countries.
    >
    >Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
    >USA.
    >
    >You can draw your own inferences. Hope you weren't carrying a GPS.
    >
    >



    The hqtrs for the FBI counterterrorism unit is there.

    I've been in Fed Plaza a couple of times to see someone in the SBA.
    Getting into the building is like a security check for an
    international plane flight. Once I went in with the usual crap in my
    shoulder bag and pockets. Everything went thru the xray and the
    security guy went nuts and proceeded to empty out my shoulder bag
    (books and papers). He finally came up with the spare stylus I carry
    for my palm pilot an was ready to prevent me from entering. It looked
    like a big nail on the scanner. I pointed to the identical stylus in
    my PP, which he had already waved thru. He probably passes a few
    hundred of those a day.





    --
    Al Dykes
    -----------
    adykes at p a n i x . c o m
     
    Al Dykes, Jun 18, 2004
    #12
  13. Ron Hunter Guest

    Bart van der Wolf wrote:

    > "Big Bill" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:11:47 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"R. Makul" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>===============
    >>>>For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
    >>>>buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
    >>>>countries.
    >>>>
    >>>>Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
    >>>>USA.
    >>>
    >>>I haven't heard of any such restrictions. Even if there were such
    >>>restrictions, they would be unconstitutional without question.

    >>
    >>I simply can't find any referrrences to photographing public buildings
    >>in the US Constitution, one way or the other.
    >>Could you provide a cite for this?
    >>Or at least a legal theory?

    >
    >
    > I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of the US constitution, but it
    > seems unlikely that the US copyright act would be in conflict with it.
    > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter01.pdf
    >
    >
    > Other legislation may (temporarily) prevail (e.g. Patriot Act).
    >
    > Bart
    >

    I rather suspect that if you stood down the street and photographed, say
    the FBI building, once or twice, nothing would be said. However, taking
    pictures of all the entrances, and the roads around it, and the roof,
    might just get someone a bit suspicious.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 18, 2004
    #13
  14. Guest

    In message <>,
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    >I rather suspect that if you stood down the street and photographed, say
    >the FBI building, once or twice, nothing would be said. However, taking
    >pictures of all the entrances, and the roads around it, and the roof,
    >might just get someone a bit suspicious.


    They don't allow you to point a camera in the direction of the
    buildings, if they see you. I took a picture of one of the Federal
    buildings looking east from Broadway just north of Chambers street in
    early 2002, and a van full of NYPD officers suddenly awoke (they were
    all sleeping when I first past them), and one got out to tell me that I
    can't take pictures of Federal buildings, as he rubbed his eyes and
    yawned.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jun 18, 2004
    #14
  15. On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:09:20 -0500, Ron Hunter <>
    wrote:

    [snip]

    >I rather suspect that if you stood down the street and photographed, say
    >the FBI building, once or twice, nothing would be said. However, taking
    >pictures of all the entrances, and the roads around it, and the roof,
    >might just get someone a bit suspicious.


    I had two stores make similar objections recently. There is a
    difference between taking a picture and "casing the joint".

    (No, I was not casing the stores. I was taking a picture of an item to
    show my spouse. They objected to my taking pictures of their layout.)


    --
    Matt Silberstein

    Do in order to understand.
     
    Matt Silberstein, Jun 18, 2004
    #15
  16. Big Bill Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:09:35 GMT, Matt Silberstein
    <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 10:00:15 -0700, Big Bill <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 04:11:47 GMT, "Ryan Robbins"
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"R. Makul" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>> ===============
    >>>> For many years it has been illegal to take pictures of government
    >>>> buildings in other countries, particularly police-state type
    >>>> countries.
    >>>>
    >>>> Since 9-11, the same types of prohibitions are being enforced in the
    >>>> USA.
    >>>
    >>>I haven't heard of any such restrictions. Even if there were such
    >>>restrictions, they would be unconstitutional without question.

    >>
    >>I simply can't find any referrrences to photographing public buildings
    >>in the US Constitution, one way or the other.
    >>Could you provide a cite for this?
    >>Or at least a legal theory?

    >
    >I would suspect it comes under the 1st. It is a government prior
    >restriction of communication absent a compelling state need.


    "I would suspect" is a lot less certain than, "...they would be
    unconstitutional without question."
    I'm lookingh for some sort of support for saying that.
    >
    >It is also really stupid. It is illegal to take a picture of the
    >Brooklyn Bridge (or from the bridge, the reports have been unclear).
    >Think of that? Somehow there is some special dangerous information I
    >can get from a photo now that is not available to my eye or the tens
    >of thousands of photos of the bridge.
    >
    >The MTA wants to make it illegal to take pictures in the subway
    >system. This is also to stop terrorists. It will be a $20 fine. (I
    >think $20 for a first.) I gather they imagine this scenario. I am a
    >terrorist planning on blowing up Time Square. I need a photo of the 2
    >train so I take my camera. But I suddenly realize that it might cost
    >me $20 if I get caught. So I abandon the entire plan and take up dog
    >grooming.
    >
    >I mean really. If I wanted to do this I could come up with hundreds of
    >ways of getting what I want. It will not do a thing to any potential
    >terrorist, it will just annoy the tourists. (Not that I have anything
    >against annoying tourists.) Now if they made it a Class B felony
    >(whatever that means, they use that kind of language on _Law and
    >Order_ all the time and they all seem to understand) and put people
    >away for years, then it could affect the plans. But not a $20 fine.
    >
    >(Oh, I forgot the <vent></vent> tags, sorry. Or would <rant></rant>
    >work better?)


    I'm not saying whether I support or don't support such laws.
    I/m interested in the "unconstitutional without question" part.

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jun 18, 2004
    #16
  17. Big Bill Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:23:29 GMT, "ESmith" <> wrote:

    >It's really sad, but it can be summed up in 2 words Patriot Act.


    Can you direct us to the part of that act which makes it illegal to
    take photos of government buildings?
    Thanks.

    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Jun 18, 2004
    #17
  18. pcd Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:10:50 GMT, wrote:
    >They don't allow you to point a camera in the direction of the
    >buildings, if they see you. I took a picture of one of the Federal
    >buildings looking east from Broadway just north of Chambers street in
    >early 2002, and a van full of NYPD officers suddenly awoke (they were
    >all sleeping when I first past them), and one got out to tell me that I
    >can't take pictures of Federal buildings, as he rubbed his eyes and
    >yawned.


    At least donut pieces didn't fly out of his mouth.
     
    pcd, Jun 19, 2004
    #18
  19. Ryan Robbins Guest

    "Big Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I simply can't find any referrrences to photographing public buildings
    > in the US Constitution, one way or the other.
    > Could you provide a cite for this?
    > Or at least a legal theory?


    The First Amendment.
     
    Ryan Robbins, Jun 19, 2004
    #19
  20. Ryan Robbins Guest

    "Big Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > >I would suspect it comes under the 1st. It is a government prior
    > >restriction of communication absent a compelling state need.

    >
    > "I would suspect" is a lot less certain than, "...they would be
    > unconstitutional without question."
    > I'm lookingh for some sort of support for saying that.


    There is extensive case law that states that photographs enjoy the same
    protection as what we would call "normal" speech.
     
    Ryan Robbins, Jun 19, 2004
    #20
    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. JohnCM
    Replies:
    57
    Views:
    3,987
    Ken Weitzel
    Jun 16, 2004
  2. Scot Gardner

    JFK: Tales From Dealey Plaza.

    Scot Gardner, Nov 17, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    3,390
    Steve Hanson
    Nov 19, 2003
  3. Ted Miller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    491
    Ted Miller
    Feb 25, 2004
  4. JohnCM
    Replies:
    65
    Views:
    2,354
  5. sammoyen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,444
    sammoyen
    Jul 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page