You are not worth an answer. Go cry some place else.Originally Posted by theicemanmpls
By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7
| |  |
Don't worry, HK. Some of us got the joke. For those of you on the forum lacking a fully developed sense of humor and irony (and there are a few), I believe that HK's statement was a humorous re-statement of the old LEO saying "If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind if I take a look, will you?" This phrase has been used countless times to bully citizens into voluntarily waiving their fourth amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
Indeed, it looks like the conversation is getting derailed. Let's focus on the situation at hand, shall we?For those of you on the forum lacking a fully developed sense of humor and irony (and there are a few), I believe that HK's statement was a humorous re-statement of the old LEO saying "If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind if I take a look, will you?" This phrase has been used countless times to bully citizens into voluntarily waiving their fourth amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.
As a photographer, I find censorship to be offensive and repugnant.
I'm not saying that everything should be photographed or recorded. However, public actions by our government enforcement agencies are on the top of my list for being a "must be recorded" action. There are too many cases where good cops are accused of doing bad things. There are also cases of bad cops getting away with murder.
There are times when a situation must be brought under control, and if that means getting people out of the area to secure it, so be it. I don't care if the people being kicked out of an area are photographers or any other type of person. Safety first. However, if the courts rule that cops can tell the people to stop recording because "they said so," then we're in it deeper than I thought.
There is a balance to be found here and I believe the balance should be heavily weighted in the rights and freedoms of the people to record what their government enforcers are doing.
At the very least we should be taking Wolfhunter's suggestion that we should be able to record the cops at least as much as they are able to record us.
The law is clear...... I was a broadcast journalism major in college, and the rule of thumb that we used, and that has been the standard for as long as I am aware, is the look-at-your-feet rule. It goes something like this:
1. Look down.
2. Are you standing on public property?
3. If yes, record away.
4. If no, do you have permission from property owner?
5. If yes, record away.
6. If no, then walk to the nearest public sidewalk, then record away.
You need no permission from anyone to film or record from public property. I can not deny you permission to film me if you are doing it from public property. You can use my image without my permission if used for news/journalistic use. If used for commercial profit, a release must be signed. However, there are lots of exceptions for even this rule.
Basically, if you don't want someone filming your face in this country, you would have to stay at home with the blinds drawn, or wear a mask when going outside.
Police can disperse crowds, and even keep the press outside an official cordon, but there has to be a specific emergency order for them to do so. That order is subject to investigation afterward.
Not looking for a fight here on this one because I beleive the ones out of step are the police that are telling the folks do not records us!!! however to address your rule-of-thumb boomboy; are you sure about that? you are standing on a public sidewalf with your camera pointed onto my property and filming away at what I am doing in my house!!! Castle, domain, expected privacy and all that......just curious if you are still in the "go zone"?
Sorry, Mojo, but the same rule applies..... Indeed, as long as I am standing on the sidewalk, then I am good to go. Of course, if I am causing a disturbance, then there are ways that LEO can deal with it. It all comes down to the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy".
For example, there was a couple recently who were arrested for public exposure because they were fond of "making happy" in their picture window. Now they were in their own home, but because they were performing in front of their window without a reasonable expectation of privacy, they were convicted.
The only exception that I am aware of, and it is only in a few states, is the laser microphone. Because they work by bouncing a laser off of your window, that is considered off limits.
As far as government goes, I'm for total tranparency in its every workings. They exist at our pleasure (or so I was raised to beleive, not sure I buy that anymore), therefore, anything they do, as representatives of the people, is open to scrutiny by the people.
As for some idiot standing on the sidewalk taking pictures of me and my family? I think, at some point, that could become harassment and I'd deal with that eventually, one way or the other. Freedom means they're free to do it and you're free to handle it as you see fit. Works for me.
Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"
Not to be a schlongmelon, but I can count at least three forum rules violated by that post. Please simmer down or take it to another forum. Just because ones beliefs differ from yours doesn't mean you should run around to every topic flaming them.
Thank you.
I believe MD is not a one-party consent state.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote