# Know your rights



## DSLR noob (Mar 17, 2008)

Ever been confused about weather or not you're allowed to shoot in an area? Ever been threatened by a rent-a-cop? Here is a list of 10 photography related laws. It's positive mostly  turns out, pretty much 80 or 90% of the situations we've been denied photography, we could do anyway and have the law on our side 

http://photojojo.com/content/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/



> *The Ten Legal Commandments of Photography*​
> I. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it&#8217;s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.
> 
> II. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, it&#8217;s fair game.
> ...


----------



## Yahoozy (Mar 17, 2008)

well now that was entertaining hahah


----------



## Garbz (Mar 18, 2008)

It should be mentioned that aside from the Lochness Monster all of those only really apply to America.

Certain rules are different. The standout one in Australia is that if an area is accessible by the public that does not make it public property. Shopping malls, privately owned parks etc are all at the digression of the owner, but you can legally take photos unless requested to stop.

As far as I can see all other rules apply.


----------



## Phranquey (Mar 18, 2008)

This is one of my favorites, written by an attorney.  I keep a copy in my bag.


http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm


----------



## 68Whiskey (Mar 18, 2008)

I also like the "Photographer's Legal Guide" which can be bought @ http://www.photoattorney.com/products.html

Really good book! I recommend it to any beginner and or professional.


----------



## craig (Mar 18, 2008)

With all due respect... I think dribble like this gives photographers a bad name. We can not walk around doing what we want under the guise of "I have rights". A real photographer respects the rights of his subjects and those around him. Or if you have a problem with that do not get caught. If you do get caught you can whip out legal documents 'till your blue in the face. No one is going to care and you will look like an idiot.

Of course a lot of famous photographers walked around the streets their whole lives and got amazing photos. I am just stating my point of view.  

Love & Bass


----------



## patrickt (Mar 18, 2008)

Some of it is wrong. A courtroom is a public place. Care to try and take photos of a trial? How about a hospital? 

So, if you're on a public sidwalk with a 600mm zoom shooting into the windows of the women's dorm at the college, that's fair game? I don't think so. Or, standing on the sidewalk in front of a grammar school shooting the kids?

I wonder about those who have great interest in their rights and no interest in responsible behavior.


----------



## Tasmaster (Mar 18, 2008)

patrick said:
			
		

> So, if you're on a public sidwalk with a 600mm zoom shooting into the windows of the women's dorm at the college, that's fair game?



Not really: 



> V. People can be photographed if they are in public (without their consent) unless they have secluded themselves and can expect a reasonable degree of privacy.



Also read the linked one, it goes into some more detail.


----------



## 68Whiskey (Mar 18, 2008)

If I am in a public place taking pictures and someone asks me to stop taking pictures of them I will respect their right. Until they complain I will keep doing it. So far I have had no objections. Which I personally do not sit at the park playground taking pictures. If I take pictures anywhere at a park it is because I got paid to cover a event or their is some sports related event going on.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 18, 2008)

patrickt said:


> Some of it is wrong. A courtroom is a public place. Care to try and take photos of a trial? How about a hospital?
> 
> So, if you're on a public sidwalk with a 600mm zoom shooting into the windows of the women's dorm at the college, that's fair game? I don't think so. Or, standing on the sidewalk in front of a grammar school shooting the kids?
> 
> I wonder about those who have great interest in their rights and no interest in responsible behavior.


 

If you read the article linked by the OP , it states that would not be ok cause they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their windows. private rooms, kids that can be easily seen from public property and not inside buildings should be fair game.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 18, 2008)

68Whiskey said:


> If I am in a public place taking pictures and someone asks me to stop taking pictures of them I will respect their right. .


 

What right is this ? Id like to know legally what right someone in public has to ask you to stop taking pictures of them.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 18, 2008)

craig said:


> Of course a lot of famous photographers walked around the streets their whole lives and got amazing photos. I am just stating my point of view.
> Love & Bass


 
A lot of famuos photographers walked around the streets their whole lives *BEFORE 911*, things are different now. I had an encounter with Long Beach PD friday night that was very unsettling to say the least, things are definately different now. 

I would hardly say pointing out legal rights is dribble. But hey who knows.

It's war on us out there if you havent noticed , time to take a side and understand whats going on around you instead of just putting your head in the sand and hoping it will go away.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> It's called the right of free speech. I have the right to ask you anything that I wish to ask you. Now, if someone courteously asks me to respect their privacy, I'll do so.


 
Oh, 

I gotcha, I thought you were saying something totally different. 

Yes I have no problems with questions from citizens or police, its what
happens after the questions if they dont like your awnser that bothers me

I would do the same thing 90% of the time , but I dont like to people
shoot anyways its always scenes or buildings. 

I try not to shoot families or kids as I feel they should feel comfortable 
when they are out. But thats just me, I dont feel anything is wrong with it either. Some guys who are really into people shots might love to shoot it.


----------



## Bigcity (Mar 18, 2008)

People do seem to be more jumpy about industrial buildings and infrastructure now. I was kicked off of 2 places this winter barely being on their property.

I saw a version of the photographers laws saying that even if you were illegally trespassing -the photos taken would still be yours.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 18, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> A lot of famuos photographers walked around the streets their whole lives *BEFORE 911*, things are different now. I had an encounter with Long Beach PD friday night that was very unsettling to say the least, things are definately different now.



Oh please. Nothing is different than before 9/11. I'm tired of people using it as an excuse, and I'm fairly sure people are tired of playing games of "find the terrorist".

You'd get confronted before 9/11, and you'll still get confronted after.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 18, 2008)

The excuse has changed, but the harassment has increased big time I think.

I'm sure it still happened tons before 911, noone here is disputing that, but the administrations open ended rules and provisions have created an environment where abuse of power flourishes.


--and no, people are not tired of playing find the terrorist, I've had hour long discussions with detectives that have 17 years under there belt and are heading up anti terror squads in LAPD and LBPD. You simply dont know what you are talking about.


----------



## 68Whiskey (Mar 18, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> The excuse has changed, but the harassment has increased big time I think.
> 
> I'm sure it still happened tons before 911, noone here is disputing that, but the administrations open ended rules and provisions have created an environment where abuse of power flourishes.
> 
> ...



Abuse of power has been going on ever since power was given to someone, and to blame the abuse of power on our administration is complete ignorance. Anyone and EVERYONE with power abuses it, the subtleness of the abuse of power depends on the person.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 18, 2008)

68Whiskey said:


> If I am in a public place taking pictures and someone asks me to stop taking pictures of them I will respect their right. Until they complain I will keep doing it. So far I have had no objections. Which I personally do not sit at the park playground taking pictures. If I take pictures anywhere at a park it is because I got paid to cover a event or their is some sports related event going on.


 
To clarify, you don't respect their RIGHT, you would be respecting their WISHES.

They have no right NOT to be photographed in public.


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 18, 2008)

"rights and such aside" ... 

I've said this before ... I would have a real problem with someone taking pictures of my daughter without asking me first.

As a "real photographer", do you really want your zoom shoved up your $%@! by a nervous parent?

There is "the law" and there is common courtesy and decency. I am sure most photographers are not out to test their rights and probably want trouble less then parents. In today's world, I draw the line at my daughter being photographed by strangers, and I am sure many parents feel the same way.

Sponsored events - company parties, Easter egg hunt, Christmas in the park ... I may feel differently.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 18, 2008)

68Whiskey said:


> Abuse of power has been going on ever since power was given to someone, and to blame the abuse of power on our administration is complete ignorance. Anyone and EVERYONE with power abuses it, the subtleness of the abuse of power depends on the person.


 
Dude, you company fairy man.

we are not disputing , nor struggling with textbook thesis 
material for definition of "abuse of power" ;  

we were debating wether or not the current climate is inclined towards abusing that power in the name of 911 in regards to photographers. Hence the title "Know your rights" Not, "does abuse happen"?

_Of course_ people abuse it, thats what we are talking about einstein...

I *am* ignorant, ignorant of people who dont know what the hell they are talking about .....



Here is what our current administration has passed under the name of 911 
thas has illegally sidestepped our constitution, I'm just saying its wrong, thats all. 

These bills basically throw the constitution out the window 
if law enforcement state or federal decides you are a terrorist threat, or suspicious to DHS in any way. 


*National Homeland Security Agency Act* (H.R. Bill 1158) 

*USA Patriot Act* (USAPA) PUBLIC LAW 107-56 (H.R. 3162)

*Real ID*

*John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007"* (H.R.5122)

Additions to the  *Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act*

*Terrorist Surveillance Program*

*Military Commissions Act of 2006*

Vetoed the *"H.R. 2082" bill *that would have outlawed illegal torture


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> May I suggest that, without a Supreme Court decision affirming your statement, it is without fact or merit.
> 
> Please note that I am neither defending nor attacking the laws that you've quoted. I am, however, attacking your conclusion.


 
-You need the supreme court to hold your hand and tell you this is unconstitutional ? 

Well, they will - Heres a few of them....


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5665192

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/washington/17cnd-nsa.html

http://www.notinourname.net/restrictions/supreme-court-28jun04.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2006/06/sec-060630-rferl01.htm

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/29/supreme-court-bush-overstepped-his-authority/

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/aug2006/nsa-a19.shtml


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 18, 2008)

Can someone explain to me what physical harm there is in taking a photo of a child? What actual harm befalls that child when a person clicks a shutter.

Where in the hell did this insane friggin' fear come from about taking a photo of a child?

I have never seen such hysterical rants about shoving lenses up peoples asses, about the photographer having a short life span, and so on,  simply because someone raised a camera and took a picture of a child.

Are you people for real? Do you really want to live in fear like this all your life. And for the guy who thinks nothing has changed since 9/11 about photographers taking photos on the streets- you must not hit the streets and do much shooting.

I am a street shooter and since 9/11 I can't tell you how many times I have been stopped, sometimes detained, and harrased by authorities. Before 9/11, it was extremely rare when this happened.

It starts here and it needs to end here. We have to take our rights back and I'm not just talking about photography. How many of you guys expect the "terrorism alerts" to pick up as we get closer to the national election? If the American people do not put their foot down and say enough is enough, then we have only ourselves to blame for this hysteria.

Once again, what the hell is wrong with taking a photo of a child at a playground acting, well, like a child? This is absurd. Be cautious, be aware, but do not live in fear. 

Stop living in fear.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 18, 2008)

I guess I sort of expect a guy called socrates to say that.


----------



## redls1bird (Mar 18, 2008)

> My sons had taken my granddaughter to the park and someone attempted to photograph her. The father and the uncle politely explained to him that, should he continue, he will never take another picture in his lifetime. The uncle went a bit further and suggested that the individual's lifetime may well be significantly shorter than he had previously expected.



Yeah,  one should have there life threatened for photographing a child, and capturing the peak of innocence.  The reason why we have adopted rights and have written them down, and enforce them is because people dont respect each other.  We dont respect each others opinions, thoughts, beliefs or even that they exist.  Because of this,  we as a group, and sometimes individuals with the power to do so have adopted fundamental "rights" for ALL people.  

The fact your sons felt the need to threaten someones life and limb is irresponsible at best.  Its why we had to adopt these rights to begin with.


----------



## skieur (Mar 18, 2008)

Garbz said:


> It should be mentioned that aside from the Lochness Monster all of those only really apply to America.
> 
> Certain rules are different. The standout one in Australia is that if an area is accessible by the public that does not make it public property. Shopping malls, privately owned parks etc are all at the digression of the owner, but you can legally take photos unless requested to stop.
> 
> As far as I can see all other rules apply.


 
You did not read it with sufficient care.  A place that is accessible to by the general public is a public PLACE, not public property.  In Australia as well as Canada and the U.S. you can legally take photos until you are requested to leave the property.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Mar 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> My sons had taken my granddaughter to the park and someone attempted to photograph her. The father and the uncle politely explained to him that, should he continue, he will never take another picture in his lifetime. The uncle went a bit further and suggested that the individual's lifetime may well be significantly shorter than he had previously expected.


 
Bad move on the part of the father and the uncle since that constitutes threatening and assault 

skieur


----------



## D40 (Mar 18, 2008)

I was asked (told no shooting really) to stop shooting on a priveate outdoor mall that was open to the public by a rent-a-cop The shopping center has older style buildings and is a really nice place but I stay away from there from now on.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 18, 2008)

Socrates, it has every thing to do with 9/11 and this current administration.  They ask you to report anything suspicious, which is fine in theory, but you know the old saying, "give 'em an inch and they will take a mile."  Illegal wiretaps, the FBI has already admitted abusing it's powers of survelliance, the suspension of habeas corpus, and on and on and on it goes.

 Spy on your neighbor, listen to Big Brother, be constantly afraid, because that is how they rule- with fear.

I have grandchildren.  I take them to the park.  If I saw, what was apparently a photographer with an SLR and a lens or two- in other words, a photographer- and he snapped a shot or two of my kids playing and then went on- who cares? I would not give it a second thought.   Now, if he is running around and covertly snapping photos and acting like a weirdo, well of course, you would be alert.  But I'm telling you, this weird, irrational fear of people snapping a photo of a child at play is lunacy.  And I don't care what era we are talking about.


----------



## Arch (Mar 18, 2008)

please... as much as i know some of you like to do it... lets not get personal with each other.... people are always going to do stupid things and things that are disagreeable to others.... thats thier problem and not really anything that can be debated.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 18, 2008)

Maybe some of our Aussie friends can chime in here.  I read that there are some beaches now in Australia that will not allow photography of any kind.  Is this true?  And if it is, what do they base this absurd law on?


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Suppose a stranger did the equally innocent act of offering your grandchildren candy?


 
That goes right back to my statement about being alert, being aware, and being cautious.

Once again, I ask you, what physical or mental harm comes to a child the moment someone snaps a shutter?


----------



## eterrisinCYQX (Mar 18, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Maybe some of our Aussie friends can chime in here. I read that there are some beaches now in Australia that will not allow photography of any kind. Is this true? And if it is, what do they base this absurd law on?


 
Know it's true on manyclothing-optional beaches, except by employees/without certain permission, but that of course makes sense. Not sure about other locations.
​


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 18, 2008)

eterrisinCYQX said:


> Know it's true on manyclothing-optional beaches, except by employees/without certain permission, but that of course makes sense. Not sure about other locations.​


 
Yes, I can see where it would be a problem with clothing optional beaches. 

That is like most, if not all, nudist camps here in the US do not allow photography.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 18, 2008)

redls1bird said:


> Yeah, one should have there life threatened for photographing a child, and capturing the peak of innocence. The reason why we have adopted rights and have written them down, and enforce them is because people dont respect each other. We dont respect each others opinions, thoughts, beliefs or even that they exist. Because of this, we as a group, and sometimes individuals with the power to do so have adopted fundamental "rights" for ALL people.
> 
> The fact your sons felt the need to threaten someones life and limb is irresponsible at best. Its why we had to adopt these rights to begin with.


 
Common sense is a rare commodity in this day and time.  Thanks for the post.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 18, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Yes, the clown with the Instamatic should have had some common sense.



So your advocating threatening someones life cause they took a picture of your grandaughter ? I mean thats pretty wack. 

You wouldn't ask them what the pictures for in a polite way, or ascertain 
what they were doing, Art project, school project, newspaper, etc.... these are all common, but you just go up and threaten there life ? 

Gee what a shame?  How can you talk about human rights, you have no place, your statement makes you basically a terrorist. 

The *real* shame will be when you threaten and assault a photographer, then you go to jail for 5-10 with a felony and terrorist threat on your record (2 strikes) and your grandkid grows up without a dad because you wanted to punish someone for doing something totally legal and pretty darn normal among artists. 

Actually, thats not a shame, if thats your MO, you need to be off the street. 

Attn moderators, this guy is advocating terrorist threats and murder. 
How is that OK ? 

After reading this I wonder, do we have a duty to report the post to the authorities in case this guy 
kills some poor photographer in the future. ?

--------------------------------


----------



## redls1bird (Mar 18, 2008)

^ +1


----------



## DSLR noob (Mar 18, 2008)

I posted this because a rent-a-cop told me not to take pictures at a mall. I didn't expect a page about what's morally right and wrong, just about what you can and can't do just in case you've been wrongly told. Guys, keep it clean, lets not debate about what's right or wrong with taking the picture of a child. also, security in all aspects, photographic or not, have doubled their restrictions since 911 in America, let's not deny that. It's not to say they weren't strict before, but it's just worse now. So let's not beat each other up, but rather learn what our rights are, so that a rent-a-cop or suspicious neighborhood watch member doesn't ruin a good shot okay?


----------



## Miaow (Mar 18, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Maybe some of our Aussie friends can chime in here.  I read that there are some beaches now in Australia that will not allow photography of any kind.  Is this true?  And if it is, what do they base this absurd law on?



I'm not so sure on the beaches though there is a nudist beach near here that I'm pretty sure it isn't allowed (cant be too certain though as I've never been there LOL) there was something in the local paper about it they have the police patrol there heaps cause they get a lot of people watching those bathing there.

some kids sporting events though it's not allowed to take pics - even of your own child (in case others get in the shot) i believe - Im pretty sure i read that a while ago in a paper


----------



## CanAm (Mar 19, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> --and no, people are not tired of playing find the terrorist, I've had hour long discussions with detectives that have 17 years under there belt and are heading up anti terror squads in LAPD and LBPD. You simply dont know what you are talking about.



Apparently my point was lost on you.

Anti-terror squads and terrorist investigators are one thing.

Some cop harassing a photographer because he's taking pictures of stuff, or reporting people for "terrorist acts" when they have no such intent is another.


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 19, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> That goes right back to my statement about being alert, being aware, and being cautious.
> 
> Once again, I ask you, what physical or mental harm comes to a child the moment someone snaps a shutter?


 
There is nothing wrong if that person is "just a photographer".

But with the number of pervs that our lovely justice system can't keep in jail, I would rather not take any chances.

As a "photographer", you want "your rights to be respected" ... fair enough.  As a parent, it is my right to be protective (over-protective maybe).  You are free to take all the pictures of buildings, fountains, etc ... that you want.  I do not even have probs with you take pictures of federal buildings - even those that I'm in.


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 19, 2008)

DSLR noob said:


> I posted this because a rent-a-cop told me not to take pictures at a mall. I didn't expect a page about what's morally right and wrong, just about what you can and can't do just in case you've been wrongly told. Guys, keep it clean, lets not debate about what's right or wrong with taking the picture of a child. also, security in all aspects, photographic or not, have doubled their restrictions since 911 in America, let's not deny that. It's not to say they weren't strict before, but it's just worse now. So let's not beat each other up, but rather learn what our rights are, so that a rent-a-cop or suspicious neighborhood watch member doesn't ruin a good shot okay?


 
Not sure a "rent-a-cop" is going after you for "911" reasons. He is either harrassing you, or he has orders from his boss to not allow photographers.

I'm guessing he is follow orders from boss.

I have no problems if others want to take pictures of my house, my car, my dog, etc ... BUT I would feel like I am intruding on someone's privacy if I did the same thing without asking for permission first. "First Amendment Rights" has it's uses, but I have a feeling founding fathers did not have paparazi in mind when they crafted it.

I've said it before - it is a sad world we live in because I do not trust anyone to take pictures of my daughter without asking me first. Fear has nothing to do with it - distrust of mankind is closer.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 19, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Apparently my point was lost on you.
> 
> Anti-terror squads and terrorist investigators are one thing.
> 
> Some cop harassing a photographer because he's taking pictures of stuff, or reporting people for "terrorist acts" when they have no such intent is another.



Not trying to be mean, but I think your point was lost before it got to your keyboard.  

*Both* Terror squads and task forces exist in greater numbers now then ever before *and *cops/guards reporting terror activity against guilty before proven innocent photographers are abundant. 

Thats the call they are making every time they stop you and make you give them your address or ID your suspected of terrorism. Its illegal and its also a terry stop. There is no articulatable crime you are about to commit by taking the pictures therefore no basis for the stop. Only patriot act gives them the power to circumvent the constitution for whatever reason they want, photographers or other. 

So, what point were you trying to make ?


----------



## Battou (Mar 19, 2008)

Bigcity said:


> People do seem to be more jumpy about industrial buildings and infrastructure now. I was kicked off of 2 places this winter barely being on their property.
> 
> I saw a version of the photographers laws saying that even if you were illegally trespassing -the photos taken would still be yours.



These people you refer to are not there to stop photography, They are there to prevent an assortment of things like theft, personal injury and a few others. Nine times out of ten they really don't give the back side of a rat if you snap off a few shots of a building, however once you step within the property line the company who hired him is responsable for what ever happens to you, thus by technicality they are obligated to have you removed from the premisis.


Mystwalker said:


> "rights and such aside" ...
> 
> I've said this before ... I would have a real problem with someone taking pictures of my daughter without asking me first.
> 
> ...



I am currently a Child Care provider and I am the first one step infront of a lens I feel is in the wrong place at the wrong time reguardless of body. 

As you said there is situational reactions, when in large groups of children I see no reason for some one who showed up with with their kids to snap away at who ever they feel like with what ever they want. At the same time though with any groups some one who shows up out of no where with a 80-200 macro zoom and no kids in tow, is not going to like me at all. 

I am the kind of person who will tell some one to change their lens or leave, and if they refuse, the children I am entrusted with are gone no two ways about it. Shoot with a short lens I can tolerate but anything giving anysort of close up I will not stand for.



Rick Waldroup said:


> Can someone explain to me what physical harm there is in taking a photo of a child? What actual harm befalls that child when a person clicks a shutter.
> 
> Where in the hell did this insane friggin' fear come from about taking a photo of a child?
> 
> ...



Taking photographs of children is not the issue, it's those who take the opertunity to get innapropriate shots of children wile they play. It is very easy to get some shots thet could be of sexual interest to pedophiles wile children are playing, trust me I've thrown away dozens of them taken by shere accident, both male and female. If one sets their mind to it the results could be devistating to the one in the picture. That is the source of the fear around it. This is why I do not allow people I do not know nor can validate their presence to use long lenses regardless of their intentions. To be quite frank I don't care how skilled the person is, they are not going to get a good upskirt shot with a 50mm from 40 yards. 

At the same time I have no qualms with parents using stuff like that regardless of who they're taking pictures of or even using them my self as I am confident parents intentions are fine.


----------



## CanAm (Mar 19, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> Not trying to be mean, but I think your point was lost before it got to your keyboard.
> 
> *Both* Terror squads and task forces exist in greater numbers now then ever before *and *cops/guards reporting terror activity against guilty before proven innocent photographers are abundant.
> 
> ...



You're arguing two sides of the same coin then. First you said that the whole anti-terror thing has legitimate backing, and now you're saying being accosted for taking photos is highly illegal.

Not to be mean, but I think you'd be better received if you didn't waste half of your articulation on trying to be an internet tough guy.

Even though 9/11 went down (a full SIX years ago), that's no excuse for being treated like a criminal without committing any crimes. We need to get over this whole domestic terror thing and live our lives like we used to. Not everyone is a bad guy, not everyone is out to get you.

I understand what you're saying entirely. I've been illegally searched for bogus reasons a couple times. Before I could have had the cops' jobs for harassment, but now I'm powerless.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 19, 2008)

CanAm said:


> Even though 9/11 went down (a full SIX years ago), that's no excuse for being treated like a criminal without committing any crimes. We need to get over this whole domestic terror thing and live our lives like we used to. Not everyone is a bad guy, not everyone is out to get you.
> 
> I understand what you're saying entirely. I've been illegally searched for bogus reasons a couple times. Before I could have had the cops' jobs for harassment, but now I'm powerless.




Ok Ok OK ., ive been touchy today. Here is why. something happened to me friday night. This should clear up my position. 

BTW I agree with a lot of what you just said.

I think the problem here is I shoot 99% of the time @ night in indusrial areas, this is MY world and im in it 15-20 hours a week, a lot of you prob dont know that.  Its a huge huge issue to us that pursue night photography. 

Im sick of wasting 30 minutes everytime a cop drives around the corner or a security guard decides to call you in and when you know in the back of your head its an illegal stop, it really sucks after a while....

 Its also uber frustrating when people who obviously dont spend any time shooting in the industrial areas at night are telling me there is no problem and im making excuses for whats always been there when just last friday I am detained in handcuffs for 30 minutes shooting from public sidewalk while my car is illegally searched. I think you would get a little touchy too. Put yourself in my shoes, nobody deserves that for pursuing art, pre or post 911

I'm pursuing legal actions with the aclu currently and the watch commander is deciding wether or not to get rid of the guy. Its just now on Digg and mirrored to my blog. 

*http://digg.com/politics/Photography_is_not_a_crime_Illegally_detained_in_LB_Ca*

of course law enforcment is there to do what, ENFORCE LAW, not  make up laws, and not break laws. Thats all Im saying. 



"internet tough guy" lol....... :lmao: I like it....but no sir, just standing up for your rights as well as mine. Your welcome !!

Can AM, look at my flickr page and check out the night photography, youll see how seriously I take it and why...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uniqimage/collections/72157603197840256/

I shoulda mentioned that earlier....


----------



## Battou (Mar 19, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> Keep in mind all I shoot really anymore for art is night industrial, this is a huge huge issue for me, ( I should have said that before)



Yeah, CanAm is new, I don't think he has had the opertunity to see the bulk of your work.


----------



## Arch (Mar 19, 2008)

Well its a good job i was asleep when most of these posts where made or i would have locked it a while ago.

Please, if i continue to leave this open READ my previous post.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 19, 2008)

Battou said:


> These people you refer to are not there to stop photography, They are there to prevent an assortment of things like theft, personal injury and a few others. Nine times out of ten they really don't give the back side of a rat if you snap off a few shots of a building, however once you step within the property line the company who hired him is responsable for what ever happens to you, thus by technicality they are obligated to have you removed from the premisis.
> 
> 
> I am currently a Child Care provider and I am the first one step infront of a lens I feel is in the wrong place at the wrong time reguardless of body.
> ...


 
Hey, I understand exactly where you are coming from. But this opens up another can of worms, doesn't it. And that is "intent." What are the intentions of the photographer- why is he taking those photos, what will he do with those photos, if anything. And that is a really gray area for law enforcement. Here is a story I posted a few months back about this very issue. I think in this instance, you see a perfect example of the old saying "give 'em and inch and they will take a mile."

Here is an example of when well intentioned laws are misused by authorities. In 2003, I believe, Texas passed a law prohibiting unauthorized photography inside locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. The law was basically written to stop pervs from taking photos with cell phones and so on and then posting the shots on the internet and other places. However, the law was so vaguely written, that soon, prosecutors around the state began extending the scope of the original law to "catch" perverts in public taking "questionable" photos.

In 2005, in Southlake, Texas, a very affluent suburb of Dallas, Lewis Vogel was arrested for shooting innapropriate photos at an Octoberfest celebration in the town square. Several ladies at the event noticed him shooting photos of, what they said were pictures of nothing but young girls. The ladies approached a couple of police officers and told them about it. The cops asked Vogel if they could see the pictures. He showed the photos to them on his camera and they promptly arrested him and confiscated the camera. 

The Southlake police department held a press conference a few hours later detailing the arrest of Vogel to the media. That evening, the story ran on every evening TV newscast, featuring Vogel's name. Vogel had no prior criminal record. Not even a ticket. Nothing. He explained to the authorities that he was testing out his new camera and he had shot several photos of pretty girls in the crowd, as well as other things happening at the event.

Vogel was released on bail. A few days later, another press conference was held in which a city attorney announced that all charges against Vogel had been dropped and an official apology was made to Vogel. The attorney said, that after reviewing the photos, there was absolutely nothing illegal about his activity.

Of course, the damage to Vogel's reputation had been done. I believe that Vogel later filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the City of Southlake.

This is what happens when you have vaguely written laws and then ask the police to enforce these laws. A lot of times, publicity seeking politicians pass band-aid type laws instead of dealing responsibly with the real problem.

This is what worries me. These are the type of things that politicians love to get their teeth in because it makes them appear tough on crime, etc.... when in reality, it is ridiculous and absurd.

And you know, I don't know what the answer is.  Of course, everyone wants to protect children, but somewhere, somehow, we have got to hit a middle ground and reign in this hysterical fear that a boogeyman with a camera is hiding around every corner, in every bush.  I wish I knew the answer.


----------



## Battou (Mar 19, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Hey, I understand exactly where you are coming from. But this opens up another can of worms, doesn't it. And that is "intent." What are the intentions of the photographer- why is he taking those photos, what will he do with those photos, if anything. And that is a really gray area for law enforcement. Here is a story I posted a few months back about this very issue. I think in this instance, you see a perfect example of the old saying "give 'em and inch and they will take a mile."
> 
> Here is an example of when well intentioned laws are misused by authorities. In 2003, I believe, Texas passed a law prohibiting unauthorized photography inside locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. The law was basically written to stop pervs from taking photos with cell phones and so on and then posting the shots on the internet and other places. However, the law was so vaguely written, that soon, prosecutors around the state began extending the scope of the original law to "catch" perverts in public taking "questionable" photos.
> 
> ...



Yes, I understand exactly where you are comming from, and yes it is a diffrent can of worms comming out of the same case of cans. That case of cans is the band-aid type laws you mentioned. However the internet is not always a part of things but that is another story. 

The problem lies in these "Quick Fixes" that never get reworked into proper fixes. This applies to both fields discussed here, Child protection and Anti-terror laws. They get thrown together so quickley they are infringing on the rights of the people they are supposet to protect. That is the bull of the issue.


----------



## rob91 (Mar 20, 2008)

68Whiskey said:


> Abuse of power has been going on ever since power was given to someone, and to blame the abuse of power on our administration is complete ignorance. Anyone and EVERYONE with power abuses it, the subtleness of the abuse of power depends on the person.



Yes, and since the beginning of time people have been killing and raping each other, since when is that acceptable? And who would you like us to blame, the ****ing boy scouts? Smokey the Bear? Burt Reynolds?


----------



## rob91 (Mar 20, 2008)

Something I don't believe that article addresses is that in private places open to the public you are free to take pictures unless asked to leave. I'm not a lawyer but that's the assumption I was under. Please, correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 20, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Can someone explain to me what physical harm there is in taking a photo of a child? What actual harm befalls that child when a person clicks a shutter.


There is no physical damage from taking a picture, you and I both know that, but if you had a child and saw some mysterious man taking pictures of your child... and it was potentially a pedophile scoping out your kid, I am sure that this would make you mildly uncomfortable to say the least.



Rick Waldroup said:


> Where in the hell did this insane friggin' fear come from about taking a photo of a child? Stop living in fear.


No one is living in fear, at least they should not be. However, the facts are that there ARE a lot of bad people out there that DO use a camera with severly bad intentions. Photographers are NOT the target of these issues... but the "bad" people with the cameras are. Unfortunately, upon first sight, it is impossible to distinguish which one they are... so you play better safe than sorry... and tell them to move on.

If I had kids, I would confront ALL the good photographers on this planet and tell them to move on just on the one in a billion chance that there was someone scoping out my child. I do not know anyone (unless they are a negligent or uncaring parent), that would not do exactly the same either.

This is not called living in fear, it is called a fact of life in the world today and accepting the fact that there are bad people out there which we do need to protect our kids from... and on a daily basis. It may be sad, but it is true none the less.

As far as any rights of photographers are concerned, I say that simple common sense and courtesy will get you out of ANY situation more than waving around some stupid piece of paper that defines your rights. Start yelling and screaming about your rights as a photographer because someone reported you to the police as taking pics of kids in a park... then be prepared to be handcuffed and hauled off to the local precinct for the old anal probe verification. Talk to the parent as a concerned human being for a few seconds and then moving on without further ado is the SMART thing to do.

I don't need someone to protect MY rights for me. I respect their wishes and can take my pictures without needing to offend anyone. For any one parent that screams stalker, I can easily find 10 that will let me take pictures openly and without restraint... if not candidly, then simply by walking up to them and ASKING.

Oh...I wasn't targeting your post specifically, Rick, I was talking more generally, but I did want to answer your question and use it as a spring board to air my opinion.


----------



## patrickt (Mar 20, 2008)

A group of photographers were in town and being quite inconsiderate. One man got within two feet of a blind beggar taking photos. She could hear the camera and was asking what was going on and he ignored her. When he finished he joined a group of friends at an outdoor cafe and ordered beer. I went over and started taking photos, very close, of them drinking beer. Suddenly, they were upset. They wanted to know what I was doing. I ignored them and kept snapping pictures and they got angrier. Then I said, "How's it feel?"

I'm amazed at the self-centered people whose world is defined by their rights. 

The pictures on my walls are almost all of people I don't know and were taken in public. In the last ten years I've had perhaps two people object. I've had another six or so ask me not to take pictures when I asked them if I could. Big deal.

FWIW, if you choose to take photos at 3 a.m. in an area with no other people the police would be remiss if they didn't stop. I went through a phase of night shots in alleys and before long the police officers who worked nights knew me and usually just waved. Having a camera in your hand does not define you.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 20, 2008)

rob91 said:


> Something I don't believe that article addresses is that in private places open to the public you are free to take pictures unless asked to leave. I'm not a lawyer but that's the assumption I was under. Please, correct me if I am wrong.


 

Yes you are correct , If its open to the public You cant get in trouble for it, but have to leave upon request. 

If there are signs, then you are on more tricky ground. I believe state law 
(at least for CA) says you have to be warned once per visit before it can be tresspassing. I dont know about other states


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 20, 2008)

patrickt said:


> FWIW, if you choose to take photos at 3 a.m. in an area with no other people the police would be remiss if they didn't stop. I went through a phase of night shots in alleys and before long the police officers who worked nights knew me and usually just waved. Having a camera in your hand does not define you.


 

If the police came up and asked you a few questions on the street thats one thing, totally fine about that, thats actually a good thing. 

but pulling you over without suspicion of any crime and illegal search and detainment that happens a lot out there; that im upset about. I thought I had made that very clear earlier.


----------



## skieur (Mar 25, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> If the police came up and asked you a few questions on the street thats one thing, totally fine about that, thats actually a good thing.
> 
> but pulling you over without suspicion of any crime and illegal search and detainment that happens a lot out there; that im upset about. I thought I had made that very clear earlier.


 
In law, the police cannot even legally stop you, interrogate, ask questions, or anything else without "just cause" and taking photos is no more "just cause" than walking down the street.

skieur


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 26, 2008)

Some of you guys are so ridiculous.  

If you dont think things have changed after 911 go down to LAX and try and take photos of the planes taking off from the streets outside the airport.  I used to do this pre 911 all the time.  My opinion FWIW is thats fine if you get a little harassed what if you were a terrorist and the authorities stopped a possible attack.  

Taking a photo of someone elses child with out permission is unacceptable.  Sure most of the time its not going to be a nut doing this but its just not worth the risk.  A parent does not need some weirdo to become obsessed with your kid.  Remember your photo is not more important than my level of comfortability.  If you cant respect that Ill help you.

If you owened the buildings that someone was taking pictures of at 3am and did not really understand photography you might also think it was a bit odd, and could lead to criminal activity.

Act like an adult and remember that your part of a society that has its share of crime.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 26, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> Some of you guys are so ridiculous.
> 
> If you dont think things have changed after 911 go down to LAX and try and take photos of the planes taking off from the streets outside the airport. I used to do this pre 911 all the time. My opinion FWIW is thats fine if you get a little harassed what if you were a terrorist and the authorities stopped a possible attack.
> 
> ...


 
:hail:

To that I'll add that a bit of common courtesy wouldn't hurt.  "Hi there, my name is abc and I'm taking pictures of children for xyz reason.  Would you mind if I took some of your child?  I'd be more than happy to send you copies."  Of course, the answer may be "No" and, in which case, a courteous "Thank you, anyway" _as you depart_ wouldn't hurt anyone.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 26, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> Some of you guys are so ridiculous.
> 
> If you dont think things have changed after 911 go down to LAX and try and take photos of the planes taking off from the streets outside the airport. I used to do this pre 911 all the time. My opinion FWIW is thats fine if you get a little harassed what if you were a terrorist and the authorities stopped a possible attack.
> 
> ...


 
The issue here is not about "acting like an adult", it's about our RIGHTS. 

I don't think that many people capture the concept of TERRORISM... it's not to kill random people, that is just a tool used to create TERROR, and by changing the way we live is nothing more than succumbing to their demands.

That being said, I am all ABOUT preventing terrorism, but Americans losing their rights as citizens is too great a cost. What starts with no Photography at night of an airplane can easily transform into "no photography within 100 yards of an airport" which can easily transform into something much much worse! It's a slippery slope of losing our civil liberties.

The simple fact is no terrorist is going to gain much by taking pictures of an airport at night... there is no information to gather that cannot be gathered otherwise, unless they've also trespassed onto the property (but thats another story).

To the parents that worry if their child is going to become obsessed over, do you wrap them in beekeeper outfits when they leave the house? If not, someone is going to SEE them eventually, and yes, you'll run that risk. I'm willing to wager that a photographer out in the open taking pics of kids frolicking is not doing it for ill-intent, unless he is hiding in some bushes with a 400mm lens. 

As a father of two little girls you can best believe I would still ASK anyone taking pictures of my kids, but to this day I've never ONCE seen the scenario at any playground or part where someone without kids is taking pics of other peoples kids at random. Just doesn't happen frequently to worry about.

I'm not suggesting people start getting rude with each other, but we DO need to know our rights as photographers, and it's each of our responsibilities as citizens of the USA (for those of us that are) to uphold the rights that we have!


----------



## Socrates (Mar 26, 2008)

RMThompson said:


> As a father of two little girls you can best believe I would still ASK anyone taking pictures of my kids...


 
What would your reaction be if the response was "Screw you, this is my RIGHT!" (which has been the tone of many of the posts in this thread)?


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 26, 2008)

RMThompson said:


> The issue here is not about "acting like an adult", it's about our RIGHTS.
> 
> I don't think that many people capture the concept of TERRORISM... it's not to kill random people, that is just a tool used to create TERROR, and by changing the way we live is nothing more than succumbing to their demands.
> 
> ...


 

RMT,- 

Your wasting your time on this one. a few people do understand whats really happening, but for the most part everyone else are just lemmings or just trying to provoke an argument. 

Of course we understand what can look suspisious, but we shouldnt also expect to have our civil rights violated just for doing something thats totally legal. 

How is it we can research and learn the laws better then the police ? We scour the net and find out what is happening in other cities, but the security guards and police cannot "discover" what it is we are doing with cameras, were all terrorists automatically ? Come up, what a bunch of lazy donuts.


----------



## Lacey Anne (Mar 26, 2008)

Interesting thread. I've never been asked to stop taking pictures in public. I probably wouldn't react well.


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 26, 2008)

RMThompson said:


> The issue here is not about "acting like an adult", it's about our RIGHTS.



I agree with you it is about rights.  But the rights that are important to you are not nesassarly important to others.  Respectfully I would ask who's right is more important a photographers right to take a photo of a child or a parents right to not have their child's photo taken.  Some parks in my neighborhood have a rule that you can not be there unless you are with a child.  Thats correct you must acomany a child to be there.

Who's rights are more important the person that does not want to take off their shoes to get on an airplane or the person who wants to make sure everyones shoes do not contain explosives.

I know this is just a photography conversation but its a messed up world we live in and your rights are going to be compromised or your gonna pay.


PS Im a gun wielding Democrat.


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 26, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> Some parks in my neighborhood have a rule that you can not be there unless you are with a child. Thats correct you must acomany a child to be there.


 
That's discrimination. I'm a single male with no kids. I don't want kids. I don't even really like a lot of kids...just my friend's who says "moo" a lot.

I do have a dog though. He likes the slides at the local park.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> I agree with you it is about rights. But the rights that are important to you are not nesassarly important to others. Respectfully I would ask who's right is more important a photographers right to take a photo of a child or a parents right to not have their child's photo taken. Some parks in my neighborhood have a rule that you can not be there unless you are with a child. Thats correct you must acomany a child to be there.
> 
> Who's rights are more important the person that does not want to take off their shoes to get on an airplane or the person who wants to make sure everyones shoes do not contain explosives.
> 
> ...


 
Let me get this straight. You live in an area where there are some public parks that adults are not allowed into, unless they are with a child? Are you okay with this? Hasn't anyone challenged this ridiculous law in court yet? What the hell is wrong with someone going to a park?

Your paranoia will be your downfall, my friend. You are the perfect example of the fear factor. Run, run, the sky is falling. Take away all of my rights so I may be protected from the the latest _fear. _

You have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, and lied to, to keep you in line. Wake up. Like I've said before- be aware, be cautious, but do not live in fear. That is how the bad guys win.


----------



## abraxas (Mar 26, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> ...
> I know this is just a photography conversation but its a messed up world we live in and your rights are going to be compromised or your gonna pay.
> ....



BS


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 26, 2008)

this is an un-needed dilema, nobodys actual legal civil rights need to be compromised in order to maintain good security. 

In order for the system to work, law enforcement has to communicate within its own agencies, Go through the checks and balances in the system so that we know its not *THEM *that are the terrorists, 
    Think with their pens and phones first before immediately resorting to fists and guns when it comes to encountering someone "out of the ordinary" 

The easy approach is just to use force and *over-monitor* everyone. This is easy to see. This is what china does, and what russia used to do. This is what is happening in the UK. 

The whole point about the phtoographer and the kids is just an courtesy issue, All Ive heard in here are arguments for breaking the law and assualting the photographer who is not breaking any law himself. 
I would have no issue to ask the parents myself, but If I didnt like someone taking my daughters picture I woudl just strike up a conversation and find out what they say. If they are hell bent on taking only HER picture for more then like 2-3 minutes, I would probably go to another park, or move to a different side of the park. 

If its more aggressive then put her in the car, and talk more to the guy, or leave. 

It the guy follows you around, tell him its making you uncomfortable and 99% of the time a normal guy would then stop and apologize. 

But there is never a time when its ok to assault the guy cause hes taking pictures, your in a public place, get over it. odds are in favor hes a photographer not a pervert. Instead of crying about your comfort level, 
educate yourself and learn something about people photography. Find out what is so special about capturing an image of kids playing, its not a crime. 

My point is, if you are having to break the law to get your rights across, 
then you should be thinking if this is a good idea. 

If you are threatening to assault, or coerse someone to not take your picture, then it is YOU my friend that is the terrorist.


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 26, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Let me get this straight. You live in an area where there are some public parks that adults are not allowed into, unless they are with a child? Are you okay with this? Hasn't anyone challenged this ridiculous law in court yet? What the hell is wrong with someone going to a park?



Personally I think that not allowing kidless adults to go to a park is overkill.  But it demonstrates the point that what is right for one person is not for the next.  

As for me being "hoodwinked, bamboozled, and lied to" your right only that I have been lied to, as have all of us.  I see whats going on.  I believe there is a threat.  Where its coming from is where I differ from the current administration.  

Can you acknoledge there is a threat?

What do you think 8 more post until this gets closed?


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 26, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> this is an un-needed dilema, nobodys actual legal civil rights need to be compromised in order to maintain good security.
> 
> In order for the system to work, law enforcement has to communicate within its own agencies, Go through the checks and balances in the system so that we know its not *THEM *that are the terrorists,
> Think with their pens and phones first before immediately resorting to fists and guns when it comes to encountering someone "out of the ordinary"
> ...



Calling some else a terrorist makes you look like you have a week argument....

Your being naive and unrealistic.  Here is a question for you.  If you were about to get on a plane and the person infront of you went through the scanner and it beeped.  Security said we want to search that person and he/she said no its a violation of my right to privacy would you still want to get on the place with that person?


----------



## Village Idiot (Mar 26, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> Calling some else a terrorist makes you look like you have a week argument....
> 
> Your being naive and unrealistic. Here is a question for you. If you were about to get on a plane and the person infront of you went through the scanner and it beeped. Security said we want to search that person and he/she said no its a violation of my right to privacy would you still want to get on the place with that person?


 
Then security would ask him to leave, then have him arrested if he didn't. Planes are not public property. You pay for the privledge to use that company's air transportation. You have to do whatever they ask of you or they won't allow you on their planes.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> Calling some else a terrorist makes you look like you have a week argument....
> 
> Your being naive and unrealistic. Here is a question for you. If you were about to get on a plane and the person infront of you went through the scanner and it beeped. Security said we want to search that person and he/she said no its a violation of my right to privacy would you still want to get on the place with that person?


 

You are confusing the issue. The issue is our rights as we know them under the Constitution. Of course we live in dangerous times and measures have to be taken to prevent attacks against us and our country. But that type of scenario you described is a real, tangible, possible threat that we know that we need to exercise caution and check out.

Taking away the rights of folks to take pictures here and there, restrict who can go into a park and who can't, to restrict exactly where a person can go and what they can do, and so on is not a direct deterrent to the situation you described. When you have government agents running into libraries to see what everyone is looking at on the internet- there is something fundamentally wrong with that. To illegally wiretap our own citizens in the name of national security, to spy on our own citizens illegally- there is something wrong with that. This is where this is going. I don't want to live in a society like that. 

The more rights we give up, the more they will take. Trust me. 

My father once told me to always respect authority, but to never just blindly bend down and kiss it's ass. When we do that, we will give up every right we have.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 26, 2008)

Sorry im no naive, You are about to be "POWNED NOOB "

I guess that fact that textbook definition of terrorism from princeton university :
*(the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear )*

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=terrorism


_Yeah, that would include threatening to assault someone cause they wanted to do something not inherrently suspisious or illegal like pictures of kids at a park._ 

I guess Princeton is pretty naive. What a lame school , what do you have to say about that my realistic little friend ? 

Your question about the plane is verbal diaherrea , that *IS* the law. You can legally be searched for setting off the machine. Why are YOU questioning the law? I thought I was the unrealistic one ? 
Oh, _maybye you dont know the law._

Go back and research the law before you post. might help. I'm not even questioning the law, I'm questioning its abuse.

The NOOB is now POWNED


----------



## abraxas (Mar 26, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> Sorry im no naive, You are about to be "POWNED NOOB "
> ...
> The NOOB is now POWNED



I'm not cool so I had to look that one up:

http://www.purepwnage.com/

Best- TH, Rick & VI.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 26, 2008)

Village Idiot said:


> Then security would ask him to leave, then have him arrested if he didn't. Planes are not public property. You pay for the privledge to use that company's air transportation. You have to do whatever they ask of you or they won't allow you on their planes.


 
The same things take place at the entrance the the Liberty Bell, which is of course public property.  In fact, if you shoot film, it _WILL_ go through the X-rays.  It probably also takes place at the White House and the Capital Building, again public property.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

abraxas said:


> I'm not cool so I had to look that one up:
> 
> http://www.purepwnage.com/
> 
> Best- TH, Rick & VI.


 
Boy, no kidding.  I had no idea what the hell Thor was talking about. :mrgreen::mrgreen:

Sometimes I feel like I am a million years old.....:x:x:x:x


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 26, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Boy, no kidding. I had no idea what the hell Thor was talking about. :mrgreen::mrgreen:
> 
> Sometimes I feel like I am a million years old.....:x:x:x:x


 

hahahahaha

sorry guys, Its my new word of the week. Hey im old too.!!!

:greenpbl:


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 26, 2008)

THOR and RICK,

I am glad to see that there are people out there that haven't succumbed to the FEAR and place a false sense of security over the rights of people.

As Eisenhowser said:



> If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.


 
Benjamin Franklin:



> Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 26, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> You are confusing the issue. The issue is our rights as we know them under the Constitution. Of course we live in dangerous times and measures have to be taken to prevent attacks against us and our country. But that type of scenario you described is a real, tangible, possible threat that we know that we need to exercise caution and check out.
> 
> Taking away the rights of folks to take pictures here and there, restrict who can go into a park and who can't, to restrict exactly where a person can go and what they can do, and so on is not a direct deterrent to the situation you described. When you have government agents running into libraries to see what everyone is looking at on the internet- there is something fundamentally wrong with that. To illegally wiretap our own citizens in the name of national security, to spy on our own citizens illegally- there is something wrong with that. This is where this is going. I don't want to live in a society like that.
> 
> ...




I agree with what your father had to say.  I for challenging authority if you do not agree with it.    That being said I dont feel like the ability to take a photograph is a Constitutional right.  

What your missing is that its a grey area.  Some people feel its ok to not let adults into a park with out a child others think its ok to hang around a park nude.  Both are illegal at some parks in southern california.  However you are only interested in supporting the person who wants to go with out a child.  Do you see how your ideas of what is a right and what is not is a personal decision.

This will really get you jacked up but I dont care if the goverment wants to listen into my phone conversations or know what book I check out of the library.  Personally I dont care.  Im not sure why anyone would care.  

The things I care about are lies about WMDs, 4000 us solidiers dead, and 100,000 with serious injuries, innocent people in foriegn countries that are being hurt and killed, Single bidding the vice presidents former company.  THose are a few of the issues important to me.


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 26, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> Sorry im no naive, You are about to be "POWNED NOOB "
> 
> I guess that fact that textbook definition of terrorism from princeton university :
> *(the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear )*
> ...




you called me a terrorist, im not sure when I threaten somone?  

Verbal diaherrea is a great expresion.  However my question about the plane has to do with peoples rights.  You feel as though its your right to be able to take photos in the middle of the night with out being detained for a period of time that you feel is excessive.  I disagree.  I feel that you should be detained and questioned.


----------



## MarcusM (Mar 26, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Boy, no kidding.  I had no idea what the hell Thor was talking about. :mrgreen::mrgreen:
> 
> Sometimes I feel like I am a million years old.....:x:x:x:x



haha...if you play video games online you would know what it meant.

Here is a good explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 26, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> you called me a terrorist, im not sure when I threaten somone?
> Verbal diaherrea is a great expresion. However my question about the plane has to do with peoples rights. You feel as though its your right to be able to take photos in the middle of the night with out being detained for a period of time that you feel is excessive. I disagree. I feel that you should be detained and questioned.


 

_*"If* you are threatening to assault, or coerse someone to not take your picture, then it is YOU my friend that is the terrorist."_

If you read all the posts you would have come across the person who was threatening to beat up or kill anyone who took his grandaughters picture. 
That was directed towards that "attitude" that its ok to do that in the name of anti-terrorism which is hypocritical.

As for the detainment, we have different points of view;

On what legal grounds should I be stopped, identified, detained physcally for more then 20 minutes and illegally searched. ? 
I would like to know the legal grounds you believe for which this should happen. 

Or do you know that is illegal , but still suport it. ? 


I'm not asking for anything thats not backed up concretely by state law.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> This will really get you jacked up but I dont care if the goverment wants to listen into my phone conversations or know what book I check out of the library. Personally I dont care. Im not sure why anyone would care.


 
Naw, if you truly believe that, then you, my friend, are really the enemy within.

There is absolutely nothing I could say here that would make you look any more foolish, than your own words.

And the sad part? Is that you have absolutely no concept of what your rights are or why they exist.


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 26, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Naw, if you truly believe that, then you, my friend, are really the enemy within.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing I could say here that would make you look any more foolish, than your own words.
> 
> And the sad part? Is that you have absolutely no concept of what your rights are or why they exist.



Becuase you value a right that I dont, im foolish?  Ok Ill go with that.  Help me to understand why its important if the goverment listens in to my conversations or knows what library books I check out.

Seriously.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 26, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> you called me a terrorist, im not sure when I threaten somone?
> 
> Verbal diaherrea is a great expresion.  However my question about the plane has to do with peoples rights.  You feel as though its your right to be able to take photos in the middle of the night with out being detained for a period of time that you feel is excessive.  I disagree.  I feel that you should be detained and questioned.



Apparently he also has some sort of a "right" to jam a camera in a strange child's face without any repercussions.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

Nope.  You do it yourself.

If you are this ignorant to basic human freedoms and rights, then I don't have the time, patience, or fortitude to deal with the likes of you.

You figure it out.

Buy a book, go online, do whatever you have to, to educate yourself.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Apparently he also has some sort of a "right" to jam a camera in a strange child's face without any repercussions.


 
This has gone far beyond the rights of photographers and speaks about our rights as individuals in our society.

Socrates, I know you do not believe this lunatic who thinks that government ought to have EVERY right to invade our privacy in order to _protect _us.

I have never read such utter bull****. And the scary part, is that he finds no problem with this premise.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 26, 2008)

patrickt said:


> A group of photographers were in town and being quite inconsiderate. One man got within two feet of a blind beggar taking photos. She could hear the camera and was asking what was going on and he ignored her. When he finished he joined a group of friends at an outdoor cafe and ordered beer. I went over and started taking photos, very close, of them drinking beer. Suddenly, they were upset. They wanted to know what I was doing. I ignored them and kept snapping pictures and they got angrier. Then I said, "How's it feel?"
> 
> I'm amazed at the self-centered people whose world is defined by their rights.
> 
> ...



You just don't understand.  The important thing is *"Screw you, this is my RIGHT!"*


----------



## Socrates (Mar 26, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> This has gone far beyond the rights of photographers and speaks about our rights as individuals in our society.
> 
> Socrates, I know you do not believe this lunatic who thinks that government ought to have EVERY right to invade our privacy in order to _protect _us.
> 
> I have never read such utter bull****. And the scary part, is that he finds no problem with this premise.



I removed my previous posts after having described a situation with a stranger shoving a camera in my granddaughter's face as I was tired of hearing about his alleged right.  My sons, the father and the uncle, explained very strongly to the perp that he does not have that right.  You were one of the ones that roundly criticized me for supporting my sons statements.

You gave up your "right" to travel without the need to prove your innocence first.  It doesn't bother you.  Hell, you gave up your right to visit the Liberty Bell without the need to prove your innocence first.  It doesn't bother you.  Yet, some pervert shoves a camera in my granddaughter's face and you shout that _"It's his right!"_  That's the bullsh1t!


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> haha...if you play video games online you would know what it meant.
> 
> Here is a good explanation:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned


\

Thank you Marcus.  I needed that.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 26, 2008)

you dont think taking a photo is a constitutional right ?
Why not ? 

The burden of proof is on you since this is a proven constitutional right allready.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I removed my previous posts after having described a situation with a stranger shoving a camera in my granddaughter's face as I was tired of hearing about his alleged right. My sons, the father and the uncle, explained very strongly to the perp that he does not have that right. You were one of the ones that roundly criticized me for supporting my sons statements.
> 
> You gave up your "right" to travel without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Hell, you gave up your right to visit the Liberty Bell without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Yet, some pervert shoves a camera in my granddaughter's face and you shout that _"It's his right!"_ That's the bullsh1t!


 

You are cherry picking what you want to hear. If you go back and read my posts, I am not advocating some jackass to act like a nut and run around a playground snapping away and pretty much acting like a creep. Of course any of us would tell the guy to get lost. But that is not what this is about, is it?

We have now progressed into some parks not allowing adults in without having a child with them, of having sane, rational people act totally irrational about ANYONE with a camera around children, and on and on it goes.

I tell you what, why don't we just all shoot flowers, sunsets, birds, bugs, etc.......but wait, someone, somewhere, might take offense to that. And guess what, the precedent will have been set starting with shooting children.

Sounds far fetched, doesn't it? Not in the world that Los Angeles envisions, because, according to him, the government would only be doing that to _protect _us from the latest and greatest fear.

Are you guys that afraid?


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 26, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I removed my previous posts after having described a situation with a stranger shoving a camera in my granddaughter's face as I was tired of hearing about his alleged right. My sons, the father and the uncle, explained very strongly to the perp that he does not have that right. You were one of the ones that roundly criticized me for supporting my sons statements.
> 
> You gave up your "right" to travel without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Hell, you gave up your right to visit the Liberty Bell without the need to prove your innocence first. It doesn't bother you. Yet, some pervert shoves a camera in my granddaughter's face and you shout that _"It's his right!"_ That's the bullsh1t!


 
How do you know hes a pervert ? and was he actually shoving it in her face ? I mean how far away was this guy standing.


----------



## Sarah23 (Mar 26, 2008)

Ohhhh goodness....what a thread. 

As always I have to add my 2 cents here. I dont know about the legality of a lot of this...but I do know as a mommy of 2 young kids, if someone was taking picture of my kids, I would ask questions and if anything was "off" about them I would ask them to stop (espeically if it was a man)...if they didnt, i would be leaving with my kids very quickly, and telling the other parents there with kids about the person as I left. There are too many pervs out there for me not to be over-cautious. My kids are much more important then some stupid photo.  Its not worth the chance.



JerryPH said:


> There is no physical damage from taking a picture, you and I both know that, but if you had a child and saw some mysterious man taking pictures of your child... and it was potentially a pedophile scoping out your kid, I am sure that this would make you mildly uncomfortable to say the least.
> 
> 
> No one is living in fear, at least they should not be. However, the facts are that there ARE a lot of bad people out there that DO use a camera with severly bad intentions. Photographers are NOT the target of these issues... but the "bad" people with the cameras are. Unfortunately, upon first sight, it is impossible to distinguish which one they are... so you play better safe than sorry... and tell them to move on.
> ...




:thumbup:


----------



## Sarah23 (Mar 26, 2008)

oh, and on the thing about parks not letting adults without kids in. It seems kinda silly to me...but if its a privately owned park I think they have the right, dont they?? (im not talking about THAT specific park...just parks in general.)


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

Sarah23 said:


> oh, and on the thing about parks not letting adults without kids in. It seems kinda silly to me...but if its a privately owned park I think they have the right, dont they?? (im not talking about THAT specific park...just parks in general.)


 
Yes, I would imagine that if it is a privately owned park, such as one that might belong to a certain housing development, that it might be possible to set rules like that.

But what if you live in that community and do not have children?  You are not able to enjoy the park because of that?  What the hell is wrong with people.

I am sure that you know, as most people do, that a child who is molested is most likely to know that person- a friend, a close family friend, or a relative.

Stop living in fear.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 26, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> How do you know hes a pervert?


 I am always suspicious of an adult that wishes to take photos of strange children, especially without having the courtesy of introducing himself, explaining his intentions and politely asking permission.  What do you suppose the reason was?



THORHAMMER said:


> and was he actually shoving it in her face?


 Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the nuances of the English language.  That is an expression that means he was moving the camera very close to her face.



THORHAMMER said:


> I mean how far away was this guy standing.


 I wasn't there and my sons were not interested in measuring.  _Since you've been shouting about his alleged "right," perhaps you can explain why distance makes a difference.  Either the perp has the right or he doesn't.  According to your rants, distance shouldn't matter._


----------



## MarcusM (Mar 26, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> Becuase you value a right that I dont, im foolish?  Ok Ill go with that.  Help me to understand why its important if the goverment listens in to my conversations or knows what library books I check out.
> 
> Seriously.



Because, if the government can just snoop into every aspect of our lives at will, then where does it end?

So, say maybe last year you were taking a religion course and the assignment was to read the Qu-ran.

Then, this year one weekend you decide to have a "Die Hard" marathon. So you check out Die Hard I, II, and III...(is there a IV??) all from the video store at the same time.

Now, since Die Hard is about terrorists, and you are reading about the Qu-ran, you must be thinking about committing terroristic acts, right? Just put 2 and 2 together. The government now has the right to haul you in for intense questioning.

Now, of course this is a totally hypothetical and ridiculous scenario that I just pulled out of thin air. But crazy things do happen, and these are the kinds of things that the government is trying to monitor. My point is that if we give the government free reign to do whatever they want, all under the facade of "fighting terrorism", then we as a free society lose out big time. This is not what America was built upon and I am amazed that I hear this type of attitude.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 26, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I removed my previous posts after having described a situation with a stranger shoving a camera in my granddaughter's face as I was tired of hearing about his alleged right.  My sons, the father and the uncle, explained very strongly to the perp that he does not have that right.  You were one of the ones that roundly criticized me for supporting my sons statements.
> 
> You gave up your "right" to travel without the need to prove your innocence first.  It doesn't bother you.  Hell, you gave up your right to visit the Liberty Bell without the need to prove your innocence first.  It doesn't bother you.  Yet, some pervert shoves a camera in my granddaughter's face and you shout that _"It's his right!"_  That's the bullsh1t!



hahaha., 


Thats not at all what happened. you said that you and your son coerced the guy by threats of life threatening violence that he could not take pictures of your daughter from a public park. Why is your story changing ? what you did was illegal do you know that? He DID definitely have that right and you took it away from him. You could have nicely talked to the guy, you never answered my question how did you "know" he was a pervert ? Did he have the shirt on that says "pervert" 

are you sure you didn't remove your post because I mentioned notifying the authorities you were planning to attempt to kill anyone who took pictures of your granddaughter. ? Seems to me if you didn't want to hear more about our constitutional rights you wouldn't keep posting your opinion. Why would you remove a post unless you were uncomfortable with it. ? 

Seems when I called your card on the threats to photographers in general who photograph your granddaughter you shut up about that completely and removed the post. 

don't worry, if you go nuts and assault someone Im  sure the administrator can find the ip address. im just not sure why you would remove it unless you didn't agree with what you had written.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 26, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> You are cherry picking what you want to hear. If you go back and read my posts, I am not advocating some jackass to act like a nut and run around a playground snapping away and pretty much acting like a creep. Of course any of us would tell the guy to get lost. But that is not what this is about, is it?


Let's see...
You can define circumstances where the perp with the camera does not have the right to take pictures but others can not.  Why is that?


----------



## Socrates (Mar 26, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> How do you know hes a pervert?


 I am always suspicious of an adult that wishes to take photos of strange children, especially without having the courtesy of introducing himself, explaining his intentions and politely asking permission.  What do you suppose the reason was?



THORHAMMER said:


> and was he actually shoving it in her face?


 Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the nuances of the English language.  That is an expression that means he was moving the camera very close to her face.



THORHAMMER said:


> I mean how far away was this guy standing.


 I wasn't there and my sons were not interested in measuring.  _Since you've been shouting about his alleged "right," perhaps you can explain why distance makes a difference.  Either the perp has the right or he doesn't.  According to your rants, distance shouldn't matter._


----------



## Socrates (Mar 26, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> hahaha.,
> 
> 
> Thats not at all what happened. you said that you and your son coerced the guy by threats of life threatening violence that he could not take pictures of your daughter from a public park. Why is your story changing ? what you did was illegal do you know that? He DID definitely have that right and you took it away from him. You could have nicely talked to the guy, you never answered my question how did you "know" he was a pervert ? Did he have the shirt on that says "pervert"
> ...



You're right about one thing.  They should have called the police and let them take care of the perp.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Let's see...
> You can define circumstances where the perp with the camera does not have the right to take pictures but others can not. Why is that?


 
Good lord!!! You do not get it. Me asking somebody not to take photos of my kids is completely different than a law being passed outlawing such activity. 

Once again, you cherry pick what you want to argue about. If some weirdo is acting like a nut on a playground with a camera with kids around and some parents ask him to quit- fine- but it is NOT the law. And asking him to quit taking photos should not involve threatening the guy's life. Go back and read what I wrote. 

Thank goodness we have the ACLU in this country. They may be the most unpopular legal organiztion in this country, but they stand up for the one thing most precious to all of us, our rights according to the Constitution. And that means the rights for ALL of us, not just a few.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

Okay, I am sure most of you have heard of Jock Sturges and Sally Mann.  

What do you guys think about their photos of nude children?

From what I understand, Sturges actually left the country because of his controversial photos.  What do you guys and gals think about his and Mann's photos?


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 26, 2008)

So,you would threaten someones life because they were taking a few pictures of your granddaughter from a reasonable distance? And your rationale is "they were a pervert" 

I ask because literally shoving something in someones face is of course not right nor legal. (still not deserving of murder) And I have to make sure since your stories seem to change details and posts disappear often. Also its possible they were mistaken and he wasnt even taking pics of her but of a flower or bird that was near her. if he was more then 30 feet away then you never know. 

Sounds to me like you need to ask more questions first and think twice before you say things to strangers. what if he was a ranger on vacation and he was doing a art project on society's dwindling green areas. Those guys pack guns and yes you would be in jail for threatening his life. 

my point is you shouldn't automatically assume someone is a pedophile cause they are taking pictures of kids playing. and you explicitly stated a pervert was shoving a camera in your granddaughters face. 

fact is you weren't even there and your talking about threating someones life, does anybody else see this as a potential problem. should this guy even be allowed on the road ?


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 26, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Okay, I am sure most of you have heard of Jock Sturges and Sally Mann.
> 
> What do you guys think about their photos of nude children?
> 
> From what I understand, Sturges actually left the country because of his controversial photos. What do you guys and gals think about his and Mann's photos?


 
Rick as much as I am for the artistic rights of all people, posed shots of nude children is crossing a line. The true test of a society is how well it protects those that cannot protect themselves, and in this case the children are not able to defend themselves, or make a decision if they want photographs of them naked out there for the world to see.

Going back to the argument of rights vs security however, I maintain that taking pictures of an airplane, or kids at a park, should be allowed - just as my right to pick my child up and move them is allowed.

The argument is silly, and people are getting too personal. Everyone needs to back up a bit and take a breath!


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 26, 2008)

RMThompson said:


> Rick as much as I am for the artistic rights of all people, posed shots of nude children is crossing a line. The true test of a society is how well it protects those that cannot protect themselves, and in this case the children are not able to defend themselves, or make a decision if they want photographs of them naked out there for the world to see.
> 
> Going back to the argument of rights vs security however, I maintain that taking pictures of an airplane, or kids at a park, should be allowed - just as my right to pick my child up and move them is allowed.
> 
> The argument is silly, and people are getting too personal. Everyone needs to back up a bit and take a breath!


 
Okay RM, that was probably a stupid analogy that I was trying to bring up. While I admire both of those artist's work, it has nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 26, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> So,you would threaten someones life because they were taking a few pictures of your granddaughter from a reasonable distance?


 No.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 26, 2008)

Socrates said:


> No.



OK then


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 26, 2008)

yeah, were not getting anywhere here. 

I think there should be a balance between being polite and concerned, but where do we draw the line? Also there will always be some extremists on each side. 

In reality the real pedophiles are usually the ones taking family pictures at xmas get togethers. Not a stranger at the park. Although im sure its happened and im sure that is a fetish for one in a million peds out there, the 99% of the time its someone who knows the victim. 

I just dont think giving away our rights one by one is a good thing. the real perverts or terrorists will just be more covert and the real photographers will get assed out.


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 27, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Nope.  You do it yourself.
> 
> If you are this ignorant to basic human freedoms and rights, then I don't have the time, patience, or fortitude to deal with the likes of you.
> 
> ...



Thats a copout.  You have time to ridicule and post your view but not time to explain it.  

The truth is, like many times in life, somewhere in the middle lies the answer.  Your so far to one side of this argument that your vision is clouded.  You believe in individual freedoms beyond anything else.


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 27, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> Because, if the government can just snoop into every aspect of our lives at will, then where does it end?
> 
> So, say maybe last year you were taking a religion course and the assignment was to read the Qu-ran.
> 
> ...



I appreaciate your example.  And to continue with that so what happens.  A goverment official knocks on your door and questions you.  OK your just a college kid, and moves on.  WHere is the harm in that.

I guess the problem is that many people see the goverment as against them and while I feel that way about this administration I do not feel that way about the goverment as a whole.


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 27, 2008)

Oh one other thing....  SOrry it has taken me so long to respond....   I was at the park shooting photos of my kids....  But I did take a photo for all of you....  note the sign on the right....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25076757@N03/2366649018/


----------



## abraxas (Mar 27, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> Oh one other thing....  SOrry it has taken me so long to respond....   I was at the park shooting photos of my kids....  But I did take a photo for all of you....  note the sign on the right....
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/25076757@N03/2366649018/



Maybe you could reduce your paranoia and level of security and protection enough to where someone could simply view your photo.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 27, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> I appreaciate your example. And to continue with that so what happens. A goverment official knocks on your door and questions you. OK your just a college kid, and moves on. WHere is the harm in that.
> 
> I guess the problem is that many people see the goverment as against them and while I feel that way about this administration I do not feel that way about the goverment as a whole.


 
The problem is with the current definitions, they don't have to knock on your door and question you. They would have the right to tear down your door, keep you in jail without council for MONTHS or YEARS... where you may be subject to various techniques, such as water boarding, in order to gain information.

Now, do i THINK that would actually happen right NOW? No! BUT if we dont start standing up for our rights, it could happen - because we've GIVEN the government the power.


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 27, 2008)

abraxas said:


> Maybe you could reduce your paranoia and level of security and protection enough to where someone could simply view your photo.



Is that your way of saying the link does not work for you?


Does it ask for a pass word or something?


----------



## abraxas (Mar 27, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> Thats a copout.  You have time to ridicule and post your view but not time to explain it.  ...



It's explained in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## abraxas (Mar 27, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> Is that your way of saying the link does not work for you?
> 
> 
> Does it ask for a pass word or something?



Post the image, I dare ya.


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 27, 2008)

abraxas said:


> Post the image, I dare ya.





You dare me...  Thats mature.  Try reading.  I asked does the link not work for you?


----------



## abraxas (Mar 27, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> You dare me...  Thats mature.  Try reading.  I asked does the link not work for you?



Post the image. Show what you got.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 27, 2008)

Good gosh, just post the image here. What is the problem.

Abraxas, you're killing me.....

And no, it does not work.  It says I need a password and I don't have a flickr account.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 27, 2008)

By the way, has anyone been watching John Adams on HBO?  Or read the book?  I read the book a couple of years ago and I have been watching the HBO special.  Great stuff.

Hey Los Angeles, that would be a great learning tool for you.  It shows exactly why we have our rights in this country and what our founding fathers went through to procure them for us.  The show really is excellent as well as the book.


----------



## Sarah23 (Mar 27, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Stop living in fear.



I wouldnt say being cautious, or even overly-cautious is living in fear. Im not going to just assume everyone is "good" and wont harm my child. I would rather be safe then sorry. I was raped as a teenager, so maybe that has made me more sensitive to it...I dont know. But some FEAR is good...otherwise you are just naive and living in a fairytale.  If I didnt have SOME fear, I wouldnt carry a gun with me everywhere...including parks.  So saying to stop living in fear sounds kind of senseless to me.

With that said, the fact that a public park isnt allowing adults in without kids is pretty stupid to me. Being a PUBLIC park, doesnt that mean anyone has a right to be there?


----------



## abraxas (Mar 27, 2008)

Sarah23 said:


> I wouldnt say being cautious, or even overly-cautious is living in fear. Im not going to just assume everyone is "good" and wont harm my child. I would rather be safe then sorry. I was raped as a teenager, so maybe that has made me more sensitive to it...I dont know. But some FEAR is good...otherwise you are just naive and living in a fairytale.  If I didnt have SOME fear, I wouldnt carry a gun with me everywhere...including parks.  So saying to stop living in fear sounds kind of senseless to me.
> 
> With that said, the fact that a public park isnt allowing adults in without kids is pretty stupid to me. Being a PUBLIC park, doesnt that mean anyone has a right to be there?



Sounds like you aren't afraid, you are aware. Living with awareness and a willingness to react is much different than living in fear, IMO.


----------



## Sarah23 (Mar 27, 2008)

abraxas said:


> Sounds like you aren't afraid, you are aware. Living with awareness and a willingness to react is much different than living in fear, IMO.



:thumbup:


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 27, 2008)

Yeah, Sarah, the park thing sounds crazy to me, too.

Is that your feet in your avatar?


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 27, 2008)

I heard about that park ban, but cannot find any info anywhere online, 

I think its basically un-enforceable as it goes against basic civil rights. I guess if its private land its different, but a ban like that on a public park the ACLU will sue them until they overturn it. 

This has been tried before in new york and overturned in a brief time period in and around the subways. Also nobody actually got any real charges for defying it cause it was not a proper amemdment to the law. They just got turned away mostly, or heavily questioned. some were detained or taken in but released a short time later, then they made lawsuits. 

I would expect the same to (rightfully) happen here,as once again you shouldnt be run off a public park for doing something like taking pictures, the ban would be eventually ruled unconstitutional after enough people collect checks from the police station, just wait itll happen. 

Dont get me wrong, I am very protective of my child, and I am an eagle eye, I can spot someone at a great distance and tell what they are doing. Im smart enough to know the real danger is the cars parked in the parkng lot ;not guys out shooting nature. 

I would save my paranoia and only call the cops if someone was actually following me around for more then 5 minutes and also taking pictures of my daughter the whole time, which just doesnt happen in the real world. 

or If I saw someone sitting in a car taking pics of people for more then 10-15 minutes. I might have the cops check it out, but at that point im pretty sure something is up. 

Have I in years of photographing at nature areas or parks ever seen someone who fits all of the criteria to actually get me paranoid. NO. 

Once again everyone needs to stop watching so much CSI and TV, and thinking a guy with a camera automatically = something suspisious. If you really think everyone with a camera is a terrorist or ped then stay inside its safer...


----------



## Sarah23 (Mar 27, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> Yeah, Sarah, the park thing sounds crazy to me, too.
> 
> Is that your feet in your avatar?



haha....no...those are my 2 year old sons feet.


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 27, 2008)

Sorry I am new to Flickr and did not know I had to change the photo to Public....


http://www.flickr.com/photos/25076757@N03/2366649018/?edited=1


note the sign on the right it reads 

"RESTRICTED   
CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA ONLY 
ADULTS WITHOUT CHILDREN PROHIBITED 
LAMC 63.44 B-7.  PC 653g"


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 27, 2008)

Sarah23 said:


> haha....no...those are my 2 year old sons feet.


 
I see...... I started to say that you have very tiny feet.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 27, 2008)

Los Angeles said:


> Sorry I am new to Flickr and did not know I had to change the photo to Public....
> 
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/25076757@N03/2366649018/?edited=1
> ...


 

Is this a private area, belonging to a home onwer's association type thing?  Also, I note that it says "Children's Play Area", and does not describe it as a park.  Just curious as to what exactly this is and how they justify the exemption of adults without children.  If this is a public park area, I cannot imagine that someone, like the ACLU, has not already challenged this.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 27, 2008)

Is this public or private ? I cant tell. 

Looks kind of like they only want the kids on the equipment, not 18 year olds hogging the swings just listening to ipods while the kids watch.

CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA ONLY , kind of seems like they mean the sandbox and equipment. Makes sense to me. Maybe im wrong id like to see that law on the books.... 

anyone else know more about these?


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 27, 2008)

I should have shot a reverse also.   This is the sand box, swing, jungle gym, area of a very large public park.  I believe these signs only exist in this area of the public park.

http://www.laparks.org/dos/reccenter/facility/studioCityRC.htm for all the info you could want on this park.


----------



## Sarah23 (Mar 27, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> Is this public or private ? I cant tell.
> *
> Looks kind of like they only want the kids on the equipment, not 18 year olds hogging the swings just listening to ipods while the kids watch.*
> 
> ...



that what I was thinking too...they dont want teenagers hanging off of it all and keeping the kids away, or braking anything...:scratch:


----------



## Sarah23 (Mar 27, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> I see...... I started to say that you have very tiny feet.



haha!


----------



## Lyncca (Mar 27, 2008)

It looks like from their site that the do not want adults without children in the children's play area only.

The rest of the park is welcome to adults I would assume, since they have adult sports programs.

I don't necessarily agree with this, but I don't think its that they don't want adults at the park at all, just this small area of the park.


----------



## ghpham (Mar 27, 2008)

Lyncca said:


> It looks like from their site that the do not want adults without children in the children's play area only.
> 
> The rest of the park is welcome to adults I would assume, since they have adult sports programs.
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with this, but I don't think its that they don't want adults at the park at all, just this small area of the park.


 
Even so, this is discrimination and sooner or later they will have a lawsuit.  Are they saying that if my wife and I having a stroll to the park and my wife wants to sit on the swing set, we are not allowed?  Public parks are funded by tax payers money, and such rules are not legal.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Mar 27, 2008)

ghpham said:


> Even so, this is discrimination and sooner or later they will have a lawsuit. Are they saying that if my wife and I having a stroll to the park and my wife wants to sit on the swing set, we are not allowed? Public parks are funded by tax payers money, and such rules are not legal.


 
Yep, that is what I am thinking too.  With this being a public park, I don't know how they expect to get away with this.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 27, 2008)

I wouldnt see anything wrong with standing on the grass and taking pictures of the playsets, or people if thats your sort of thing. 

I will add its a pretty boring backdrop with the fence and everything

This doesnt say anything about photography and public places, just 
rules for a obviously small and overcrowded sandbox. Why are we looking at this ?


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 27, 2008)

ghpham said:


> Even so, this is discrimination and sooner or later they will have a lawsuit.  Are they saying that if my wife and I having a stroll to the park and my wife wants to sit on the swing set, we are not allowed?  Public parks are funded by tax payers money, and such rules are not legal.




Yes your not allowed.  Just like your not allowed into a public womens bathroom.  Some places in public are off limits to some people.  Do you think its discrimination that a man is not allowed in a womans public bathroom?


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 27, 2008)

THORHAMMER said:


> I wouldnt see anything wrong with standing on the grass and taking pictures of the playsets, or people if thats your sort of thing.
> 
> I will add its a pretty boring backdrop with the fence and everything
> 
> ...



Becuase it does not say no more than 30 people in the play area.  It says no adults with out children.


----------



## abraxas (Mar 27, 2008)

Lyncca said:


> It looks like from their site that the do not want adults without children in the children's play area only.
> 
> The rest of the park is welcome to adults I would assume, since they have adult sports programs.
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with this, but I don't think its that they don't want adults at the park at all, just this small area of the park.



I think it's to keep the winos off the swingset.  The link to the county/city provided is worthless and explains nothing.

I'm thinking that L.A. is just a troll at best, or possibly a poser.  I mean, the shot looks like it was taken from a van with a telephoto lens.  Who knows what was going on under the dash?


----------



## Socrates (Mar 27, 2008)

abraxas said:


> I think it's to keep the winos off the swingset.  The link provided is worthless and explains nothing.
> 
> I'm thinking that L.A. is just a troll at best, or possibly a poser.  I mean, the shot looks like it was taken from a van with a telephoto lens.  Who knows what was going on under the dash?



It appears that he was trying to make the point that rights are never absolute but that obviously went right over your head.

Why the snide remark?  Is that your method of illustrating a point?


----------



## Los Angeles (Mar 27, 2008)

abraxas said:


> I think it's to keep the winos off the swingset.  The link to the county/city provided is worthless and explains nothing.
> 
> I'm thinking that L.A. is just a troll at best, or possibly a poser.  I mean, the shot looks like it was taken from a van with a telephoto lens.  Who knows what was going on under the dash?



Whats worthless and explains nothing are your post.  The link provides the location of the park and gives som info as to its size.  It also proves that its a PUBLIC park.

Not trolling, and not sure what I would be posing as.  Your remark about me doing something under the dash is a personal attack and not appropriate.


----------

