NYC sued over right to shoot video, pictures in public

Those days are gone, but please do not confuse the restrictions placed on the Federal Government with restrictions on the state goverments.

The relevant constitution amendments to this case were incorporated to apply to state and local governments by the 14th amendment.

I know that many freepers feel that the SCOTUS was in error in those incorporation decisions, but the fact of the matter is that it until those decisions are overturned by another SCOTUS ruling or by constitutional amendment the incorporation decisions are binding law - like it or not.

The V is not the F. The V runs through the 53rd Street tunnel. The F runs through the 63rd Street tunnel. It's not like, say, the C and A, which run the identical route, local and express.

I like the new subway cars on the IRT - although it's not very New York-like when you can actually HEAR the station announcements.

...constitutional rights...??????????

Yeah.

Somewhere in the 19th or early 20th century, the courts decided several absurdities.
First, that the U.S. did (or even could) adopt a constitution that applied to everyone in the world.
Second, that it applies to casual tourists in transit or even enemy agents illegally here!

Hmm, I too am a (semi-) professional photographer, and I never really thought about this.

Fortunately what I mainly specialize in is remote, lonely landscapes, and the only serious cityscapes and buildings I have done are in Las Vegas and my home town.

It has always been my belief that as long as you are on public property you have a right to photograph anything (of course under many situations you need to get a model release from identifiable people in your shot if for publication).

But to a terrorist, so many things that millions of people have photographed for years may be a 'strategic' target.... Hmm, A thorny issue indeed. I can see where New York City might want to be 'better safe than sorry'... And maybe require a permit for anything but the most casual 'tourist snapshots'.

But I guess I say let them take pictures... And if they are taking photos in a manner that leads one to suspect that they are doing surveillance or planning something nasty, THEN haul them in for questioning.

As to the broader question of 'Constitutionsl Rights' for foreigners I'm a little less generous. As far as I'm concerned, anyone here illegally have NO constitutional rights... They should be treated humanely and sent back where they came from within 24 hours.

And maybe we (Congress) should codify precisely the 'constitutionsl rights' of legal visitors. I don't believe that merely setting foot on American soil should give one the full rights of a citizen.

RE: "Somewhere in the 19th or early 20th century, the courts decided several absurdities."

Yes. That, in itself, is ample good reason to pray that Alito is confirmed. ...and it looks like we may not be the ONLY two who think this particular 'absurdity' to be repugnant -- see #46.

"The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution."--Justice Byron R. White

"In a constitutional democracy the moral content of law must be given by the morality of the framer or legislator, never by the morality of the judge." --Judge Robert Bork

"Judges who take the law into their own hands, who make up constitutional 'rights' in order to strike down laws they oppose, undermine the people's right to have their values shape public policy and define the culture."--Senator Orrin Hatch

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.