Posted on 12/11/2009 8:51:05 PM PST by Dallas59
“...do you have a problem with this photo of a modern childrens’ carousel in the middle of an ancient European city?”
On the grounds that it was taken in a public square, no. Assuming the photographer either got permission to take and/or post this, or was a parent or guardian, again no.
Seems to be a nice pic.
He was assaulted and arrested without cause. Taking photographs that he was legally allowed to take is not cause for arrest, much less assault.
Police are required to have a reason for arresting someone. Seeing someone engaged in a legal act is not grounds to arrest them for sex crimes, no matter how filthy the mind of the arresting officer is. Presumption of guilt without evidence isn’t just cause.
The owners of the mall have the right to forbid or regulate photography by the public. They do not have the right to have anyone beaten up and arrested for violating their policies (which weren’t posted anyway). If he violated their posted policy against photography (which he didn’t) they could sue him.
“Public places” does not mean “public property.”
“Public property” does not mean “public places.”
“Please don’t use them interchangeably.”
Semantics. I believe I addressed the differences in several posts (which I doubt you bothered to read).
“There are laws which apply to public places such as malls, which do not apply to private places such as your home.”
Malls have the right to set rules of acceptable behavior for their patrons. They can deny photography unless permission is granted by mall management on the grounds that it can be a nuisance to other customers.
This particular mall said “no photography.” And i don’t buy the argument that the rule “wasn’t posted.” They don’t post rules telling you not to pee in public either. Does that mean if you’re arrested for doing so, a lack of “no peeing in public” posting exonerates you???
In this case, it was up to the photographer - if acting in a professional capacity as a freelancer - to find out what the rules were and get permission, just like the rest of us real journalists have to.
He wasn’t peeing in public. He was taking photographs in public. There’s no law against that.
The owners of the mall can set policy in the mall, within legal limits. They cannot write laws. That’s what we elect legislators for.
“Why do you keep repeating the lie that manners equates to guilt?”
Because you keep repeating the lie that what this guy was doing was legal. He knew- at the very least - he had no right photographing minors without parental permission, and - when asked to delete the images - did so. He did so precisely because HE KNEW HE DIDN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP THE IMAGES HE JUST TOOK! Get it now?
I’m trying to avoid having to cite all my sources from the PPA (Professional Photographers of America) and the NPPA (National Press Photographers Association). Go look them up if you want.
No, it’s not just semantics. You’re erroneously claiming that malls are not public places. They are.
Why would try to avoid backing up your claims. Don’t hold back on my account.
The father of the little girl asked him to delete the photo. He did. That is not an admission of guilt, any more than stepping aside to allow someone to pass is an admission that you’re guilty of trespassing.
And no, it is not illegal to take photographs in public.
“He was taking photographs in public. There’s no law against that...The owners of the mall can set policy in the mall, within legal limits.”
It’s within the mall’s legal rights to set “no photography without permission” rules. Again, I’ve had to deal with this directly as a working photojournalist. The guy was an idiot for doing what he did without permission. Keep arguing it all you want: you have no experience in this regard and it shows.
“In this case, it was up to the photographer - if acting in a professional capacity as a freelancer - to find out what the rules were and get permission, just like the rest of us real journalists have to.”
Wait until you get arrested for wearing your FreeRepublic t-shirt because the mall you’re in doesn’t like it. And it won’t make any difference because they have some unposted rule about political or “offensive” apparel.
They cannot write laws. That’s what we elect legislators for. Your ignorance is showing.
If the owners of the mall post a policy against photography, (which by all accounts they didn’t), and he knowlingly violates that policy, (which by all accounts he didn’t), then they can sue him. They do not have the authority to write laws criminalizing taking photographs in public.
“Why would try to avoid backing up your claims.”
Because normally I don’t argue this long with people as willfully ignorant as you, and have no intention of wasting my time further.
Educate yourself. It’s clear I’m just wasting my time and irritating you.
I'm sorry, but people are just going nuts on the subject. It should STILL be legal for a photographer to take pictures of ANYTHING and ANYONE that can be seen in public.
Every photographer who snaps pictures of kids is NOT necessarily a pedophile. The paranoia is becoming dangerously absurd.
Unless there is evidence of the commission of some actual crime, the police should NEVER have even questioned the guy.
Wow...So many straw men...so little time.
P.S. Your village called: they said they were missing you.
Obviously your word means nothing to you.
You must be very new to Seattle, aSeattleConservative (and hey -- welcome!). It's not been so many years since they convicted a longtime favorite Santa in the city of Lake Forest Park, just northeast of you, of numerous counts of child molestation. It was all over the news for some time running until they finally put him away.
One of the arguments is that he wasn't taking photos in public, because the mall is privately owned. ROFL
As long he didn’t take photos...
By "public", I meant any place he legally has the right to be.
IOW, if it is lawful for him to be present there, and lawful for him to see what he sees, then it should be lawful for him to photograph it too.
Photography is nothing more than vision made permanent. The law should reflect that fact.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think the argument that malls are not public places so photographers should be beaten and arrested, is lunacy.
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.