City sued over limits on photography (article from today's (NJ) Bergen Record)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob, Jan 11, 2006.

  1. Bob

    Paul J Gans Guest

    You are clearly right. But that's news to this long-time
    NYC resident and car owner.
    I was going to take pictures of our three favorite signs,
    the "No Parking", the "No Standing" and the "No Stopping"
    signs, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

    Out of towners must be mightily confused by this all.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bob

    Lionel Guest

    Well, I normally ignore political threads in inappropriate groups, no
    matter how strongly I feel about the particular subject, but with the
    sheer volume of hypocritical crap about the wonders of American Freedom
    that we non-Americans have been subjected to over the last few years -
    while America has been taking as much freedom as possible from the rest
    of the world - there comes a time when it's just too hard to resist
    calling some of you on it, & throwing a microscopically tiny bit of it
    back where it came from.
    Newflash Bill: The 9/11 terrorists have already beaten America. The
    American government conceded defeat when they announced the "Patriot
    Act", & the American people admitted their defeat when they permitted
    their government to take away their freedoms without so much as a
    whimper. What the terrorists wanted was to show America just how shallow
    all the patriotic rhetoric about the Land of the Free actually is, & to
    take away as much of that freedom as possible, & you guys gave them
    exactly what they wanted.
    So tell me, Mr Patriot, /would/ you be so relaxed about somebody's
    rights being violated by a police officer if it /was/ your spouse or
    your child? Would you just chalk it up as the price that patriotic
    Americans have to pay to fight an abstract concept, or would you get
    quite a bit more upset than you did about some poor sod with the wrong
    skin colour who made the mistake of thinking that it was safe to use a
    camcorder on a big city street in the Land Of The Free?
     
    Lionel, Jan 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bob

    Lionel Guest

    Oh please, the American government leans hard on foreign nations who
    dare to try to enforce their laws against American citizens who commit
    crimes in those nations.
    So, what crime was it that the cop imagined this guy was doing in openly
    filming activity in a public area?
    Oh please, that's a complete joke. How can a photographer not see the
    gaping holes in that argument? Anyone with half a brain trying to get
    surveillance video of such a place for military purposes wouldn't be
    silly enough to do it by standing on a busy street with a camcorder for
    half an hour. Just one incredibly obvious method would be to simply rent
    an office with a view of the target area & install a video camera with a
    long lens. If they were really feeling paranoid about being caught, they
    could add an encrypted radio data link to transmit the video to a safer
    location, but it'd probably be an unneccessary waste of money if the
    'enemy' is so clueless that they'd waste man-hours on hassling visitors
    with camcorders standing in plain view on the street.
     
    Lionel, Jan 14, 2006
  4. Bob

    Lionel Guest

    So what you're saying is that that gives the States the power to
    override the Constitutional rights of any American citizen whenever they
    feel like it?
     
    Lionel, Jan 14, 2006
  5. Bob

    ttdaomd Guest

    I think people should travel more. See what the other guy is doing
    across the ocean. Go take some pictures and then come back. It might
    change your perspective.

    I remember a vacation with my wife one day in Tulum, south of Cancun.
    I set up a $20 tripod and $100 camera to take a shot of my wife and I
    with a small pyramid in the background when a mexican tourist guide
    shouted obscenities at me for ignoring the government`s rules against
    using tripods at archeological sites without written permission. Of
    course, the intent, as I interpreted it, was to prevent study of the
    sites without authorisation, not to prevent a tourist from taking a
    romantic snapshot of his vacation.

    I think even photographers have the habit of seeing in black & white.
    The world is, of course, in many shades of grey, and even in color
    sometimes. :))) IMHO, the patriot act should be seen as a defense
    reaction to a changing world. Of course it is unfortunate, but the bad
    guys are not operating under any rules of engagement. It is naive to
    think that hiding our sensitivities under the protection of civil
    liberties all the while complaining that the government is not doing
    enough to protect the public is contributing anything to help improve
    our defense. A time and place for everything. Imagine standing up and
    bitching about civil liberty abuses when a Gengis Khan or a Napoleon or
    a Pol Pot is invading your city.

    This is a different type of war. We have to get used to a different
    type of peace.

    Tien
     
    ttdaomd, Jan 14, 2006
  6. Bob

    Lionel Guest

    Kibo informs me that stated that:
    Of course another possibility is that the rule is prevent the
    possibility of spiked tripod feed from further damaging the ruins they
    might be standing on, or things just under the surface of the ground,
    but I imagine you have the sense to watch out for that sort of thing.
    But of course you make a valid point WRT to the risks of doing something
    seemingly harmless in a foreign country.
    OTOH, I don't recall the Mexican government or citizens lecturing the
    rest of the world about how Free & Democratic Mexico is, & how the rest
    of the world needs to emulate it.
    But the problem is that it /isn't/ a changing world - the rest of the
    planet has been having to cope with terrorist attacks for 50 years or
    more. The only thing that's changed is the American *perception* of
    terrorism, which was caused by a terrorist group becoming strong enough
    to attack American soil & citizens at home.
    You think that's *new*? Ever heard of the French Resistance during WWII?
    If I recall my history books correctly, America was 100% in favour of
    equivalent tactics against the Germans at the time.
    Sure, but you might try explaining to your government that it looks a
    tad hypocritical when it constantly preaches Liberty & Freedom, while
    simultaneously ripping them away from it's own citizens & those of other
    nations. It's probably not possible for most Americans to understand how
    incredibly hypocritical that makes America & its citizens look, but it'd
    be nice if some of you at least tried to see it from an outsider's point
    of view.
    Indeed. I imagine that the best time to do it is when they still need
    your vote to stay in power, eh?
    Welcome to the Real World, Tien, the rest of us have been here for a
    long time - long enough to have seen what happens when a country
    responds to organised terrorist attacks with massive military
    retaliation & ever-increasing restrictions on the 'rights' of its
    citizens.
     
    Lionel, Jan 14, 2006
  7. Bob

    ttdaomd Guest

    Really? It isn't a changing world? Tell that to the families of the
    victims of 9-11 AND victims of US retaliation within the US and abroad.
    Agreed...Maybe a few thousand years earlier I would submit. That is
    why it is good to travel. I guess you missed that point.
    DId I ever say this was "new"?
    I am sure La RĂ©sistance would roll over in their graves to hear you
    compare their efforts at liberation in the hands of the Germans with
    the guys who hijacked commercial airplanes and rammed the innocent into
    oblivion on 9-11.
    First of all, it is not my government. Secondly, hypocrisy covers a
    spectrum of degrees like many things in life. Ergo, thinking in black
    and white again are you? :)) Any elected leader will be hypocritical
    when he preaches representation for the desires of his voters but then
    goes ahead and votes his conscience ,which may be in opposition to
    their desires. That is part of being a leader. Hence, Liberty and
    Freedom, while ideal concepts to aspire to, are never realizeable
    completely. "Ripping them away" has connotations of massive removal of
    many liberties and freedoms, which is not yet the case. Of course,
    many precidents have been made in states of war. We should not be
    surprised that some degree of loss of freedoms and liberties we are
    accustomed to will be denied during this long protracted war.
    Not actually BEING and american, but as an outsider, I cannot say with
    certainty. However, if you spoke to individual americans such as I
    have, you might be surprised to see what a generally enlightened group
    they can be; quite aware and dismayed at the world's perception of them
    and very aware of the hypocrisy to which you speak. However, I would
    warn against making the typical outsider`s mistake and mistake the
    major news networks' polls as a simplistic reflection of the real
    complexity of the american populus.
    Not really, eh? Being tyrants that they were, not many of them needed
    to get elected nor had a need for truly elected puppets.
    Is it truly necessary to be be continually patronizing in order to try
    to make a point? A discussion should be able to stand on its own
    merits without these personal insults.

    Tien
     
    ttdaomd, Jan 14, 2006
  8. Bob

    Ryan Robbins Guest

    Everyone within the borders of the United States enjoys the same
    constitutional protection, regardless of their citizenship status.
     
    Ryan Robbins, Jan 14, 2006
  9. Bob

    Ryan Robbins Guest

    The problem is, we aren't at war. President Bush would like to think he's a
    war president because he has visions of being remembered as such in the
    history books, and the news media find it simpler to say we are at war. But
    we are not.
     
    Ryan Robbins, Jan 14, 2006
  10. Bob

    Tony Cooper Guest

    That is patently false.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 14, 2006
  11. Bob

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Just read the lines in Amendment X above. It's self-explanatory.

    The states cannot override the powers granted to the federal
    government or enact laws that allow something prohibited by the
    Constitution.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 14, 2006
  12. Bob

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    In my Googling, I found no jurisdiction where the law on this differs.
    Those definitions seem to be pretty universal.

    What they're confused by is alternate-side parking. Heck, living
    outside the city, *I* don't understand it, either.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 14, 2006
  13. Bob

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    What war?
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 14, 2006
  14. Bob

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Was America 100% in favor of the French Resistance executing attacks
    against civilian populations? Really -- I don't know the answer to
    that question.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 14, 2006
  15. It's one thing to understand what all of those signs mean but in NYC it's
    another thing entirely to know exactly what parts of the street all of the
    various "No Parking" signs are referring to. It can be extremely confusing
    when a sign post has two or three different signs on it and then one has to
    determine what they all mean.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jan 14, 2006
  16. Bob

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Not revenue; the permits (in NYC) are free. And, if you require police
    assistance on the set, for traffic control, oversight of prop guns, or
    whatever, that is provided for free as well. No, really.

    You need a permit to do things that get in the way. That's the purpose.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 14, 2006
  17. Really?!? I would have thought that the city required their costs to be
    reimbursed for providing some sort of service, such as police, for this. I
    guess if they did require it then they would be discouraging filming in NYC.
     
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jan 15, 2006
  18. Bob

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Most jurisdictions would make you pay. NYPD has a unit dedicated to this
    job, and provides the service for free, because they want to encourage
    productions to come to the city.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 15, 2006
  19. Bob

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    See: http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/index/index.shtml
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 15, 2006
  20. Bob

    Bill Funk Guest

    What rights, exactly, were violated here?
    You talk in soaring terms about lost rights, but you don't seem to be
    able to name them.
    In this case, a person who should have had a permit, didn't havet he
    permit. It has been *sugested* that this was somehow racist, and
    represents a taking of a right. But neithe rhas been documented, so
    this is just talk, with no substance behind it.
    Some are very quick to claim that we've lost the fight agains
    terrorism, but they can't point to where this loss is actually
    demonstrated, except with some pretty wild accusations involving the
    Patriot Act, which, so far, not even it's strongest detractors can
    blame for *any* losses of rights, nor can they point to *any* actions
    undertaken in the name of the PA that has resulted in any loss of
    rights.
    If, of course, you have information about this that has escaped
    everyone else, please enlighten us.
     
    Bill Funk, Jan 15, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.