# Photography Banned At Accident Scenes



## DennyCrane (Mar 4, 2011)

This is very chilling. Illinois state representative Tom Holbrook is backing a bill which will ban video and photographs from being taken at an accident scene. He's citing the _possibility_ of interference with emergency personnel. The bill is being discussed as targeting cell phones, but the exact wording would include all cameras and video recorders, up to and including pro equipment. This bill is so broad and vague, it will never pass any kind of close scrutiny. It will be overturned in the courts. But it's the fact that the government is seeking to limit what can be photographed in public places that is worrisome. This is no "individual photographer harassed at train station" thing. This is a preemptive strike at all photographers. 

Pay attention to this one. It could decide what other states try.

Bill targets cell pictures at the scene of accidents - WJBC - The Online Voice of Central Illinois


----------



## PASM (Mar 4, 2011)

As a politician, I wonder what's in it for him?


----------



## Formatted (Mar 4, 2011)

> He's citing the possibility of interference with emergency personnel



My argument would be that enforcing this law would interfere more with the emergency response than the people being there in the first place, I'll let someone who wants to bash on about "Freedom of speech" etc. 



> As a politician, I wonder what's in it for him?



Unless he is planning on getting involved in a car crash, not a lot.


----------



## DennyCrane (Mar 4, 2011)

My guess, he's pandering to some political contributor.


----------



## PASM (Mar 4, 2011)

Mine too. Insurance co's? Legals? Some kind pie-fingering middleman that obliquely gains..IMHO 


DennyCrane said:


> My guess, he's pandering to some political contributor.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 4, 2011)

DennyCrane said:


> My guess, he's pandering to some political contributor.


 
Or maybe he has been, or knows someone who has been an accident victim and had to suffer as some idiotic "journalist" takes pictures of him or a friend/family member laying on a stretcher. I think that as long as this applies to everyone at the scene (ie no exceptions for so-called "professionals") it is an excellent initiative and long overdue.


----------



## PASM (Mar 4, 2011)

You could well be right. You have 'conviction' politicians ? how quaint..we don't have those where i live 



tirediron said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> > My guess, he's pandering to some political contributor.
> ...


----------



## Nubbs (Mar 4, 2011)

PASM said:


> As a politician, I wonder what's in it for him?



Im sure some Lobby group is greasing his pockets somehow and for some reason.   Maybe it has something to do with some politician or big wig CEO that had his picture taken at a car crash after a long bender.  The beer cans if the front seat of his Benz didnt go over well in the press. Illinois is in such a terrible financial state that you would think he would spend more time figuring how to keep paying teachers and less on keeping cameras away.


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2011)

I think it is depressing that people don't have any sensitivity towards victims... its a symptom of our society only distracted by these types of laws.   In my mind, this move falls under attempts to write common sense into law.  On the surface, this may seem all well and good but in the end they do one thing, limit people's rights.  Its difficult to for see the impact of these types of laws on a larger scale.   

* Does it limit involved people from taking pictures for evidence?
* If there is any wrong doing at an accident scene, can photographic evidence be thrown out because it violates such laws?
* How about a person who just happens to have a camera in hand.  Does it give the officer the right to confiscate equipment?   If said person claims no pictures were taken, it will amount to the word of an officer against the person.
* As someone points out, it could be just as distracting enforcing such laws.

With more thought, one can probably come up with more.... and I place my bets that reality will show even more.

For me, the recent climb of such laws against stupidity has been on a rise.  Its worry some.   For one, a NYC lawmaker is trying to make texting while walking a finable offense.  WTF?   This law is in my mind one of the same...

How about my small town fitting the bill for a 4million dollar monstrosity of a walking bridge over a traffic signal'd intersection?   I understand that a young girl was killed there a few years ago.... my heart bleeds for those but we'd go broke if we kept building a 4 million dollar bridge where ever a pedestrian was hit.   Oh and a few years before that there was another pedestrian hit south of town.   No bridge there?   Oh I forgot, that pedestrian was a maid walking home from work while the little girl for which the bridge was built was the daughter of an influential local politician.  :-/     ..I have yet to meet a politician that made me "feel" good.


----------



## PASM (Mar 4, 2011)

All pertinent points usayit. How many everyday people, e.g in a road accident get photographed? Things maybe different in other places but where I am is doesn't happen. The only 'footage' like that would be from a major catastophe you know, like a train crash or earthquake. Are those people bothered - i think they have bigger things to worry about.


----------



## RockstarPhotography (Mar 4, 2011)

Not only does this infringe on freedom of speech, but also on freedom of the press.   Just another way for our government to put another shackle on us.  Since we no longer have ANY freedoms, just rights, and rights can be taken away at any time.  Just ask a japanese american that was alive around around 1942 if you don't believe me.


----------



## Overread (Mar 4, 2011)

The problem I see is that if everyone is slowing to stop and take photos it causes a build up around the accident site - traffic normally slows near an accident site as people take a peek - if they are slowing down further to take photos it further causes the chance for additional accidents or blocking the arrival of emergancy services. 

However I think that overarching this is the problem that there are now more people with "pro gear" and "pro dream" who "know their rights!" and who take the Paparazzi approach things a bit more fanatically. This of course causes problems at the sight because these sorts will try to get past barriers - be the first on the scene (just to shoot with no concern of helping and with the great chance of hindering) etc...

Personally I think that it is correct to try and limit things so that the emergency services can perform their job without having to worry about additional risk takers or people deliberately getting in the way. Easiest way to do this would be to have photos allowed only by official press photographers (though of course this is slightly undermined by the fact that you can make a blog/newspage up and call yourself official press very easily)


----------



## PASM (Mar 4, 2011)

Overread said:


> The problem I see is that if everyone is slowing to stop and take photos it causes a build up around the accident site - traffic normally slows near an accident site as people take a peek - if they are slowing down further to take photos it further causes the chance for additional accidents or blocking the arrival of emergancy services.
> 
> However I think that overarching this is the problem that there are now more people with "pro gear" and "pro dream" who "know their rights!" and who take the Paparazzi approach things a bit more fanatically. This of course causes problems at the sight because these sorts will try to get past barriers - be the first on the scene (just to shoot with no concern of helping and with the great chance of hindering) etc...
> 
> Personally I think that it is correct to try and limit things so that the emergency services can perform their job without having to worry about additional risk takers or people deliberately getting in the way. Easiest way to do this would be to have photos allowed only by official press photographers (though of course this is slightly undermined by the fact that you can make a blog/newspage up and call yourself official press very easily)




True, but I think those 'rubberneckers' going to slowdown and rubberneck anyhow. I wonder how tight the criteria of incident becomes defined..does it evolve to encompass other events. Political demonstrations (perhaps someone within the context becomes injured?) But i admit I am a cynic often regarding political initiatives. ("Problem-Reaction-Solution").


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 4, 2011)

Heh.

This thread title caught my eye because I live in Illinois and I JUST finished a 7 day project making photos of an accident scene.

NOTHING surprises me anymore here in Illinois.  Things that common sense would dictate could NEVER happen in state government often does.  Don't forget... "we" elected Rod Blagojevich as governor...  twice.

While I do understand such a ban might protect folks from exploitation at a time when they're most vulnerable, the thought of a law like this makes me very suspicious.

-Pete


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2011)

Sorry i don't agree on any level....

Traffic slows and increases risk regardless of camera presence
People's crowding around an accident is bad regardless of camera presence
Nosey people are annoying regardless of camera presence

The more sensible thing is to secure an accident scene and setup a perimeter... the job of the police ALREADY.  If someone violates the perimeter, fine.. but  identifying a particular group for any reason is asinine.


Do I need to point out that a person involved in the accident that wishes to record photos for evidence is not going to be a "professional" photographer.  what about their rights?


----------



## PASM (Mar 4, 2011)

Good point .. I wonder how the PD feel about it.. maybe they roll their eyes and think not another PITA obligation placed on us by the suits.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 4, 2011)

Sometimes I refuse to try and figure out why our governments do what they do. They react to events in the most stupid ways and we have to live with it. I remember years ago when some guy parked himself under a legally parked tractor-trailer and lost his head. His family was friendly with the mayor who banned truck parking in town...

My wife and I plus a few people with common sense went to the public meeting to discuss the ban and asked if we would ban street lights if someone ran into one and died. We were told it was different but no one explained how it was different.




Christie Photo said:


> While I do understand such a ban might protect folks from exploitation at a time when they're most vulnerable, the thought of a law like this makes me very suspicious.



Wasn't it in Illinois that some young lady killed herself in a nasty accident and gruesome photos of the result (half of her head gone) ended up all over the web? I seem to remember that the photos had been emailed to the parents by some idiot. Unfortunately, I also seem to remember that it had been decided that the photos had to have been shot but emergency personnel...


----------



## usayit (Mar 4, 2011)

I don't recall that particular incident but I think we should ban toll booths....

Several years ago there was a teen girls photo (I felt sick after seeing it) hanging out of a Porsche 911 turbo that had crashed into one.   Her clearly visible head was literally smeared on the side of the vehicle with brain matter everywhere.   Never mind the fact that she had a history of mental problems and went suicidal.   The sick f** who took those photos is low scum... but does it mean we should ban toll booths?  They are obstacles placed in the middle of a freakin highway...






besides...




I hate paying tolls to and from work.


----------



## DennyCrane (Mar 4, 2011)

I see this simply as further erosion of photographer's rights. I don't care if it's a crappy iPhone camera or a top end Canon DSLR... if you're in a public space, and there's no existing law_ for that area_ restricting photography... You are within your rights to take pictures. This is a slippery slope that could have unexpected consequences. I see nothing positive about this law.


----------



## KmH (Mar 4, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Wasn't it in Illinois that some young lady killed herself in a nasty accident and gruesome photos of the result (half of her head gone) ended up all over the web? I seem to remember that the photos had been emailed to the parents by some idiot. Unfortunately, I also seem to remember that it had been decided that the photos had to have been shot but emergency personnel...


It was California. She took daddy's Porsche after they had an argument. It was a CHP officer that took the photos and put them on the Internet.

Ladera Ranch woman killed in 241 collision | honda, officials, porsche - Homepage - The Orange County Register (No photos of the crash)


----------



## MSnowy (Mar 4, 2011)

The law is focused more towards cell phone users and there will be exceptions. On the bright side everyone on this forum knows real photographers don't uses cell phones as cameras


----------



## Alpha (Mar 4, 2011)

The guy is backing a bill that has been proposed. Can we have an appropriately titled thread, please? Nothing has been banned yet.


----------



## KmH (Mar 4, 2011)

No. Lets stir the pot, and agitate for protecting our first amendment rights.

Besides, once posted, thread titles cannot be changed.


----------



## usayit (Mar 5, 2011)

KmH said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't it in Illinois that some young lady killed herself in a nasty accident and gruesome photos of the result (half of her head gone) ended up all over the web? I seem to remember that the photos had been emailed to the parents by some idiot. Unfortunately, I also seem to remember that it had been decided that the photos had to have been shot but emergency personnel...
> ...


 
I sure hope the CHP officer lost job and pension for that.   Maybe its cynical me but there is little protecting the civilian from the occassional bad cop....  well maybe a record of such violations by a passerby who just happen to have a camera.   If I were a bad cop, Id sure want a ban on cameras in as many areas and situations as possible.


----------



## MarcPPhotography (Mar 5, 2011)

Doesn't say anywhere that you cant be chillin super far away and just 600mm that stuff.


----------



## fwellers (Mar 6, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Wasn't it in Illinois that some young lady killed herself in a nasty accident and gruesome photos of the result (half of her head gone) ended up all over the web? I seem to remember that the photos had been emailed to the parents by some idiot. Unfortunately, I also seem to remember that it had been decided that the photos had to have been shot but emergency personnel...


 
That is the one that my wife said is the cause of this bill. She also said it was supposed to be just against emergency workers, first responders etc... from taking pics. 

However it started, I am with those who cannot stand reactionary type lawmaking that ends up trying to legislate common sense while denying me my rights. Well meaning or otherwise, I'm getting real tired of all the BS rules and laws.


----------



## djacobox372 (Mar 6, 2011)

tirediron said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> > My guess, he's pandering to some political contributor.
> ...


 
Your right... this whole "freedom" thing is such an inconvenience sometimes.


----------



## skieur (Mar 6, 2011)

It has reached the point that banning photography or video is virtually impossible from a technical standpoint.  Even sunglasses can record video with sound.  I am considering picking up an HD/PVR coat hanger powered by a lithium battery.  Great for a last resort layer of home security.  Wireless video through a pen is also possible.

skieur


----------



## PASM (Mar 6, 2011)

True.. Minox - pen/sunglasses/belt cameras commercially available these days.


----------



## usayit (Mar 6, 2011)

Actually, being sneaky can actually worsen the publics opinion about photographers.   Paparazzi and child pornographers have done wonders to all photpgraphers reputation.   

You can be of 100% within legal right but you mannerism can lead those around you to believe you are commiting a crime.   Take one coke bottle in a brown paper bag sipping from it in a street known for bars...  I bet you will attract the police.   Do the same without the bag, no problem.

Street photographers will also tell you that the difference between a successful photo and a failed one will often lie in how you carry and present yourself.  Look like a pirv or sinister fellow sneaking around wont get you as far as someone enthusiastic, open, and charismatic attitude.



See.....  one of my points was that these laws also distract from the real problems.  People focusing on being sneaky with their photography is one such example/result.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 6, 2011)

djacobox372 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > DennyCrane said:
> ...



Of course, how silly of me... I can completely understand why your right to take photographs should transcend the victim's right to privacy.


----------



## DennyCrane (Mar 7, 2011)

What are the expectations of privacy in a public place?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Beuller?


----------



## ClickAddict (Mar 7, 2011)

DennyCrane said:


> What are the expectations of privacy in a public place?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> ...



Woman driving in her car along highway. 
Woman has accident
Ambulance needs to rip apart blouse/pants whatever to get to problem area.  (I'm not a medic so can't give specific scenario but this does happen)
guy takes picture of her unconcsious half dressed an bleeding.

I think it's reasonable to assume since she didn't wander in the streets exposing herself she had some expection not to have pictures with her half naked taken.
Even fully clothed, perhaps she doesn't want her children seeing her in such a state.  In accidents people are in situations they did not plan.  Expectation of decency/privacy is removed from them.  These are the ones that bother people.  The pics of the overturned cars and such are not what triggered this attempt at banning.  Its the ones showing people.  Most mainstream newspapers (Not talking enquirer types) will not post the people in accidents, they will focus on the vehicles.


----------



## usayit (Mar 7, 2011)

ClickAddict said:


> Woman driving in her car along highway.
> Woman has accident
> Ambulance needs to rip apart blouse/pants whatever to get to problem area.  (I'm not a medic so can't give specific scenario but this does happen)
> guy takes picture of her unconcsious half dressed an bleeding.



1) Police responsibility to secure scene.
2) It can be argued (as you are doing) that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.   I stress the word "argued".   If deemed so, then there are already laws on the books protecting such rights.   

What you describe is no different than a person on public property shooting into the bathroom window located on private property.    In general, you have zero expectation or right to privacy on public property.  



It  must be VERY DIFFICULT to write such notions into law as you MUST avoid making the public SUBJECTS/SERVANTS to the law books rather than the laws SERVING the public.  Laws are funny thing... they can protect an individual right in a few situations but take away rights of many people in many situations.   

In my opinion, writing common sense and these so called "quality of life" issues into law does exactly that..... take away rights of many people in many situations.  On the same token...  If you take away individual rights to check and balance police/government activity, you risk making the public SERVE or become SUBJECTS to the agencies rather than the agencies SERVE and PROTECT the public.


PS> we can't build a bridge every time a pedestrian is hit   We can't ban trucks from parking an area because someone hit one  We can't ban photography because of the slightest fear that someone will use it to take advantage of victims.   We can't ban free speech because a few racists choose to use it as a weapon against another.  

At some point, you end up with no rights to do anything.    What  you have is martial law in which the public is sub-servant to military government.   This has happened in the past and it can happen again... usually with the notion that the public has to be protected from itself.


----------



## usayit (Mar 7, 2011)

tirediron said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...


 

THINK Bigger man.... its not photography versus victim's rights.  Its much larger impact than that.   The impact is greater than photography or any one victim.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 7, 2011)

ClickAddict said:


> Woman driving in her car along highway.
> Woman has accident
> Ambulance needs to rip apart blouse/pants whatever to get to problem area.  (I'm not a medic so can't give specific scenario but this does happen)
> guy takes picture of her unconcsious half dressed an bleeding.



This is a case for common decency and self control. Neither of which will ever be taught through laws. Parents need to teach their children and act as they teach or the lesson will not be learned.




usayit said:


> THINK Bigger man.... its not photography versus victim's rights.  Its much larger impact than that.   The impact is greater than photography or any one victim.



I quite agree. Watch out for stupidity or your freedom of speech will be as seriously shackled as it is here in France where a journalist was just convicted of not being PC enough. When I first read about him I had to go back and re-read the quotes because I had not realized those were the reason he was in trouble...

French journalist convicted on racism charge over drug dealer comment | World news | The Guardian

Signed: Sick and tired of PCness


----------



## DennyCrane (Mar 7, 2011)

ANY restriction of the protected rights of a photographer can and does lead to further restrictions. It's a slippery slope. Go look up the wording of this bill and see how vague it is. Everyone seems focused on taking grotesque pictures of victims... but the bill can prevent taking pictures of a cop being abusive or negligent at the scene. All over the country, there's police trying to stop people from video recording them. This bill is NOT about protecting accident victims.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 7, 2011)

Okay, just for s**ts and giggles, I decided to actually read the legislation as proposed.  I am now totally baffled by the hue and cry that it has raised:  

Here is the synopsis extracted directly from Illinios State Government documents:

"_Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that no person may use a wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle within 500 feet of an emergency scene except for specified purposes. Adds digital photographs and video to the definition of "electronic message" in provisions prohibiting the use of electronic communication devices while operating a motor vehicle. Effective immediately. "_

All this bill does is *prohibit people who are driving* from using *camera-equipped cellular telephones* while driving within 500' of an emergency situation.  There is no provision that I can see which would prohibit you from walking up to the scene, SLR in hand and taking pictures.  I see nothing in here which is vague, or infringes on any rights whatsoever.  All I see is a common-sense safety measure.

Am I missing something?


----------



## ClickAddict (Mar 7, 2011)

Ha Ha.  I think you read that correctly.  And it makes sense.  If you can't drive and use your cell phone already (some places have this law others not) it only makes sense to specify "taking picture" with phone as part of  using phone.   Those of you with the spy camera in your sunglasses are ok I guess.


----------



## usayit (Mar 7, 2011)

yes.. you are still missing the big picture..

camera phone or slr ... makes no difference.


If it truly only applies to moving vehicles, there are already laws on the books AND it is utterly useless to protect victims.  As such it should not be wriiten into law.   Laws are not a wish list Of pet peeves, they are a serious means of limiting of one groups rights over another.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 7, 2011)

usayit said:


> yes.. you are still missing the big picture..
> 
> camera phone or slr ... makes no difference.
> 
> ...


Okay, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but I would respectfully submit that you are missing the point. The Bill (Full text here) as I understand it, only restricts your right to use the camera if you are opertating a motor vehicle. All they have done is add the use of the camera to an existing law which restricts the use of cellular telephones in that state. Essentially they have closed a loophole which would have allowed the *DRIVER* of a motor vehicle to claim that he was using a camera on his telephone rather than talking on it. There is no restriction on getting out of your car, walking up to the accident scene (If you are of a ghoulish persuasion) and photographing it. Nor, according to this law, is there anything to stop you using your DSLR or film camera while driving.

Since using a cellular 'phone while driving is not something any sensible person would do, I can't see how it can possibly be seen to be negative.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 7, 2011)

What this thread really is about.








Damn, the next thing you know, they will expect people to keep their hands on the wheel and pay attention to their driving.  What is this world coming too? :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## PASM (Mar 7, 2011)

Is the use of a cellphone prohibited by law whilst driving a car anyway?


----------



## tirediron (Mar 7, 2011)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Damn, the next thing you know, they will expect people to keep their hands on the wheel and pay attention to their driving. What is this world coming too? :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:



Oh like that'll ever happen!


----------



## table1349 (Mar 7, 2011)

PASM said:


> Is the use of a cellphone prohibited by law whilst driving a car anyway?


 
Depends on the state.  There is no national law on the use of cell phones while driving.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 7, 2011)

usayit said:


> 1) Police responsibility to secure scene.



1a) Photographer's responsibility realize a bit of compassion for fellow man.



usayit said:


> It  must be VERY DIFFICULT to write such notions into law ...



Maybe, as a society, we wouldn't feel the need to attempt such law if we could all control our own selfish impulses.  

-Pete


----------



## molested_cow (Mar 7, 2011)

If this is about not taking photos while driving, I definitely agree. They should ban non-hands free cell phone behaviors if they haven't. When I go jogging in the late afternoon, you have no idea how many drivers I see on their cellphones....

Anyways, seems that terrorism is working. Everyone is now paranoid of cameras. The government is trying to stop people from taking photos or videos left and right. You can't use cellphone or cameras or camcorders in "federal facilities", which include airports and such. Well, there are a lot of immigration officer abuse taking place in US airports but no one has the right to document that? What about police on duty? If I am not wrong, a judge in IL also ruled against a person for documenting bad police behaviors claiming that it's against the police's "privacy". Come on, it's a police office on duty in the public! If he has something to hide, there's something very wrong. Land of the free? Where?


----------



## usayit (Mar 7, 2011)

Christie Photo said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Police responsibility to secure scene.
> ...



Totally agree....  see my previous comments except I wouldnt use the term responsibility.    Police responsibility to secure scene is their job and duty  it isnt the job of the photographer to be compassionate.  


but


things like moral code, compassion, common sense, and yes religion have no place in law.  By whose notion of moral, common sense, or definition of compasion should we deem absolute?    Because of our diversity, writting such into law will no doubt always supress anothers rights.    No one should fear legal threat for being an jerk, ass or (just like in France) not being PC enough.


----------



## PASM (Mar 7, 2011)

usayit said:


> things like moral code, compassion, common sense, and yes religion have no place in law.



Therefore allowing laws which are immoral, uncompassionate, nonsensical?


----------



## usayit (Mar 8, 2011)

PASM said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > things like moral code, compassion, common sense, and yes religion have no place in law.
> ...



This is a logical fallacy.  One statement does not imply the other.  Furthermore, moral code defines both immoral and moral.    None of such notions belong on the law books but also does not necessarily imply that they do or do not already exist in current law.  

PS
I noticed you left out religion in your statement.... hmm interesting position.


----------



## PASM (Mar 8, 2011)

usayit said:


> PS
> I noticed you left out religion in your statement.... hmm interesting position.


 
Using to ad hominem provocations..no I'm not religious.

I think you're chasing your own tail with this one.


----------



## usayit (Mar 8, 2011)

PASM said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > PS
> ...



Not chasing anything....  I'm not religious either.  You are misreading my intentions....  

I lost a debate once because I made a single flawed argument based on a similar premise.  In this case, its seems acceptable to write a particular peoples'  "moral code" into law but not acceptable to write "religion" into law.   You can't really argue one without the other and keep a strong position (as I have discovered)  This is a common mistake (I made it as well) for those who are of not religious background (like me) who have a tendency to think of them separately rather than intertwined/related.  

Both are capable of providing guidance to an acceptable "right and wrong" stance but them themselves shouldn't be the basis from which laws are written.   If so, we as a society always run the risk of alienating or discriminating against a particular group of people.


For example, we as a society have stated that killing another is illegal.  How did we come to that notion?   From a Christian standpoint, we can argue that its against one of the commandments.   However, the law cannot be written in such that killing is illegal because it is against the Biblical commandments.  This can/will alienate others of non-religion or other faiths no matter how good the intentions.  What we can write into law is that we as a society make murder illegal because it denies another individual the right to live.  Or from a philosophical standpoint, we are denying society from benefiting from the person's existence... their future contribution to society.  

This is the same as these common sense laws and so called "quality of life" laws.   By who's definition are these laws being created?  And do we stand the risk of making the larger group of people subject to these laws rather than the laws protecting the individuals.  

ok .. i"m rambling sorry..


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 8, 2011)

I didnt read all the responses but do you know that at most busy intersections in the US they use a camera to control the lights?  (as opposed to a sensor the overlay underneath the asphalt).  These camera are also recording everything.  They can even move the camera around from the base.  Funny how they want us not to record anything but the government record everything we do.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 8, 2011)

usayit said:


> ...things like moral code, compassion, common sense, and yes religion have no place in law.



Agreed.  Sadly, "we" have created a milieu that practically demands we legislate morality out of fear of unjust consequences.  This is evident by the success of the ABC news television program _"What Would You Do?"_  How often do we find ourselves in a situation that requires us to act but we hesitate to consider if another's offensive behavior is illegal?  We wonder if intervention would invite legal retribution.  Very sad.



usayit said:


> ...it isnt the job of the photographer to be compassionate.



I think it is.  I think it's the "job" of all mankind, no matter what our profession.  The problem is not all of us are really good at our job; some of us dismiss it entirely.

That's where the problem comes in.  Our attempts to legislate morality haven't  worked.  Intensifying the attempt by addressing more and more circumstances or escalating the prescribed remedies can only lead to more failure and likely bring about more apathy.

I don't know what the answer will be.  But I suspect any new laws, as good intentioned as they might be, would likely be twisted and abused to serve some other purpose.

-Pete


----------



## PASM (Mar 8, 2011)

Look, set aside religion - it's another argument which dovetails into 'moral code' and using it's known dogma and hypocrisy to taint the first three criteria is weak and partisan.

If you assert moral code, compassion and common sense have no place in law - you embrace the same M.O as the laws which banned blacks from the front of the bus and jews from public parks. Yes you do 100% you do. This is OT with regard to this thread, so i'm withdrawing from further back and forth here with you guys.




Christie Photo said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > ...things like moral code, compassion, common sense, and yes religion have no place in law.
> ...


----------



## usayit (Mar 8, 2011)

PASM said:


> If you assert moral code, compassion and common sense have no place in law - you embrace the same M.O as the laws which banned blacks from the front of the bus and jews from public parks. Yes you do 100% you do. This is OT with regard to this thread, so i'm withdrawing from further back and forth here with you guys.



No incorrect.    I don't embrace those laws.  Not because they are against "moral code" but because they denied equal rights to all individuals.   The one single flaw in all your stances is that you assume there exists a single moral code.. one that you embrace.  

If you believe that laws should be written to enforce moral code then not allowing religious code into law is hypocrisy.   You have yet to define who's moral code we are to follow.    You can't simply write laws because it "feels" right.. or is compassionate.  You have to write it with a solid foundation. 

You can continue down this path argument but you cannot establish a strong foundation without first defining by which moral code we are to legislate.  

btw...
This is the same statement made in many separation of church and state debates.   "You can continue down this path argument but you cannot establish a strong foundation without first defining by which religion we are to legislate."  Its easy for anyone to tear apart your argument until you define religion and/or moral code.  

Or 

you can continue to answer with emotion.. it doesn't matter to me.


----------



## usayit (Mar 8, 2011)

Christie Photo said:


> Agreed.  Sadly, "we" have created a milieu that practically demands we legislate morality out of fear of unjust consequences.
> 
> But I suspect any new laws, as good intentioned as they might be, would likely be twisted and abused to serve some other purpose.



Well stated.   We fail to solve problems in society so we shove it down peoples' throats with legislation.

Shall we discuss education now? lol   How nothing I'm saying is new and that it should have been covered at high school level and philosophy courses?   oh yeh.. they (along with other things like arts and music) have been replaced with computer classes and stupid college prep stuff.  ( i know, I'm a direct result.. only to have discovered the "holes" in my education in my later years on my own and through my acquaintances / coworkers / friends)  Learned more now ever before.


----------

