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

    Bill Funk Guest

    No, I mean having none of the things that the government provides.
    Schooling, roads, health care for those who can't afford it.
    Help in natural disasters, like Katrina.
    Food for the hungry.
    Or do all thiose things just naturally happen with no governments?
    BTW, check the rest of the world for the freedoms we have here. Not
    even the vaunted EU has freedom of speech.
    It's real easy to complain without thinking.
     
    Bill Funk, Jan 15, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Oh, at least. We would also likely gather and inter all men between the ages
    of 16 and 45 years of age that have ANY physical appearance that indicate they
    MAY be of middle eastern descent.

    (It's a JOKE, kind sir.)[/QUOTE]

    I got it, thanks :)
    True, it's happened throughout the ages all over the world.

    [good stuff sniped]
    Yep. "Eternal vigilance..." is required not only against the people
    but also against government. It seems to be that there just isn't any
    accountability any more.

    Here in London, a few months ago, a Brazilian was shot in the head at
    close range with several bullets by the police whilst being
    restrained because he looked non-white and might have been a suicide
    bomber and really all that he did was stand up when startled by
    non-uniformed armed men. He carried nothing that would suggest that
    he was armed or wired up with explosives (hell, if he was a suicide
    bomber a dead man's trigger is all that was required to set off the
    explosives if he was shot dead). There will be no accountability for
    these "shoot to kill" polices, the excuse being that the police were
    in a heightened state of anxiety due to the recent London bombings.
    But it is at times like this that we need cool heads. Way too much
    over-reaction by many people.

    Read the misinformation that was spread by the police that the
    Brazilian was chased by police, that he had warm baggy clothes in the
    middle of summer, that was vaulted over the ticket barriers, etc. All
    false:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm

    A fairly good summary of events:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

    Hmm. I think that we're getting waay off-topic here!

    --
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu
    Website : www.metalvortex.com
    Contact : www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm

    "It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice", Straight to Hell - The Clash
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Jan 15, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bob

    Ryan Robbins Guest

    Oh, so the government can restrict the speech of foreign visitors?
     
    Ryan Robbins, Jan 16, 2006
  4. Bob

    cjcampbell Guest

    What was the hazard to public safety presented by using a handheld
    video camera?

    I realize that most of the people responding to this post seem to
    assume that it had something to do with terrorism, but I see nothing in
    the article that supports this theory.

    Apart from that, it would appear that the greatest threat to public
    safety in New York City appears to be from the NYPD, especially if the
    public insists on carrying cameras and using them. This does not bode
    well for the tourist industry.

    I have to wonder how long New York's big photography schools and retail
    outlets will desire to remain in such a hostile environment.
     
    cjcampbell, Jan 16, 2006
  5. Bob

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Yes. The government can restrict the speech of Americans, too.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jan 16, 2006
  6. Bob

    Bill Funk Guest

    That is not anywhere near the extent of protection the Constitution
    offers to citizens.
    And, yes, it actually *can* restrict the speech of foreign visitors.
    In many "town meetings", only the involved can address the panel; this
    means even US citizens, who aren't local to the meeting, can be turned
    away from the podium.
    No right is absolute.
     
    Bill Funk, Jan 16, 2006
  7. No, the pilots would have simply trained in another country. 767 and
    757 cockpits all look alike, with the controls in the same place, and
    there are many airlines operating them. It can't be that difficult
    finding a non-US flight training school.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Jan 18, 2006
  8. Per RichA:
    First thing that comes to my mind is that the lady FBI agent in the southwest
    that figured something was wrong with those guys - but ignored by the chain of
    command above her - would not have discovered them.

    Seems to me like we were *that* close to busting the whole thing before it
    happened.
     
    (PeteCresswell), Jan 18, 2006
  9. Bob

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    There was the FBI lady in Minneapolis, too.

    I wonder if the guys didn't also practice navigating to the towers using
    Flight Simulator.
     
    Lorem Ipsum, Jan 18, 2006
  10. Per Lorem Ipsum:
    Oops!.... That was probably the one that what's left of my mind was trying to
    come up with.
     
    (PeteCresswell), Jan 18, 2006
  11. Bob

    Eric B. Guest

    Per RichA:
    That would never have happened silly. The ACLU would have stepped in and
    defended the poor Arabs just trying to learn a trade. And of course if we
    had good reason to be suspicious of them we couldn't wiretap them or
    anything intelligent like that to uncover their network. They are in America
    now, where it is your God given right to secretly plan suicide attacks
    unimpeded by crazy politicians that might want to prevent you from attacking
    us. I mean FEELINGS MIGHT GET HURT!!! We can't have that. Besides, we are
    more interested in tearing down our president right now.

    Eric B.
     
    Eric B., Jan 18, 2006
  12. Bob

    Guest Guest

    Eric B writes:

    Eric> Per RichA:
    Eric> That would never have happened silly. The ACLU would have stepped in and
    Eric> defended the poor Arabs just trying to learn a trade. And of course if we
    Eric> had good reason to be suspicious of them we couldn't wiretap them or
    Eric> anything intelligent like that to uncover their network. They are in America

    With any reasonable to be suspicious you can get a legal
    wiretap. The hurdles are very low.

    Eric> now, where it is your God given right to secretly plan suicide attacks
    Eric> unimpeded by crazy politicians that might want to prevent you from attacking
    Eric> us. I mean FEELINGS MIGHT GET HURT!!! We can't have that. Besides, we are
    Eric> more interested in tearing down our president right now.

    No, you seem interested in building up strawmen and
    toppling them over. Hard work that...
     
    Guest, Jan 18, 2006
  13. Dude, "strawman" is not the preferred nomemclature. Mulch-American, please.
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Jan 18, 2006
  14. Bob

    Eric B. Guest

    The President signing a wiretap order that is specifically allowed by the
    Patriot Act is about as legal as it gets. That doesn't seem to stop the
    hurdles from being thrown up. Our enemies get to saw people's heads off on
    videotape, but we have to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules. Ridiculous.
    No strawman. Just truth.

    Eric B.
     
    Eric B., Jan 18, 2006
  15. Bob

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Eric B. proves he will suck turds out of his Glorious Leader's ass for
    free:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

    Basically, Eric B., you are ignorant. Woefully, almost painfully,
    ignorant. So much so I must conclude for the time being you are
    _deliberately_ ignorant (hence my lead-in, above).

    I mean, why not just think about this. Sit down and out your fingers
    to your temples: if the Patriot Act "specifically allows" the class of
    wiretap in dispute, then why does el presidente need to sign an order,
    let alone a _secret_ one? Surely even you must be aware that the
    entire text of the euphemism called the Patriot Act is public
    knowledge?
    Oh, I get it now! Because the enemies of your construction act like
    barbarians, you feel free to do so as well! Right. Check. Okay.
    Carry on, sir!
     
    eawckyegcy, Jan 18, 2006
  16. Bob

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Yeah, let's become just like the bad guys. Let's give up everything that
    defines what we are in order to defend what we are. Great idea. Idiot.

    It's people like you who ensure that we have *already* lost.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 18, 2006
  17. At least he didn't accuse you of wanting to sing KUMBAYAH with YOUR
    BUDDY Osama Bin Laden. That's a start.
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Jan 18, 2006
  18. Yeah. OBL and his cronies have no ability to directly change the lives
    of more than a tiny number of Americans (or Canadians, Brits, Australians,
    whoever the target of the moment is). The greatest impact he can have
    on the American way of life is to scare Americans into making their own
    lives worse in the name of security.

    Unfortunately, that played directly into what the current administration
    wanted to do anyway.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Jan 19, 2006
  19. Bob

    Mike Ross Guest

    Quite right too, if you're shooting with a crew. What you're all
    overlooking in this thread is that, in the case referred to by the OP,
    the guy was filming street scenes, alone, with a *hand-held
    camcorder*. Does every tourist shooting video up and down Broadway
    need a bloody permit these days, then?

    Preventing someone from shooting video in a public place is a very
    serious prior restraint on speech, in US terms - the courts would need
    a lot of persuading that the ban on filming served an overwhelming
    public need that couldn't be met in any less restrictive way before
    they would pronounce it legal.

    Mike
     
    Mike Ross, Jan 19, 2006
  20. Bob

    Ryan Robbins Guest

    It's the price we have to be willing to pay for our freedom.
     
    Ryan Robbins, Jan 19, 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.