1st Amendment Right to photograph? I happened across this story from 2010, but obviously still relevent. http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street What...

chrome98 Loc: Hannibal, MO

I happened across this story from 2010, but obviously still relevent.

http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street

What do you think?

Ambrose Loc: North America

chrome98 wrote:

I happened across this story from 2010, but obviously still relevent.

http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street

What do you think?

Creepy or not, bottom line is that he hasn't broken any laws and has every right to be there. Neither the management nor the police have ANY right to ban him from the area. Period.
Cases like this make me fume.

sarge69 Loc: Ft Myers, FL

My first thought was also he had a right to take the photos in a public place. But then I thought of it as one woman objected.

I don't care if he is in a public area, if a person is the subject of his photo, that person should be asked if they object. If they do, they are off limits. He refused to delete a picture of a person who found out he was taking her picture and that is wrong. He has infringed on HER rights even with a telephoto lens.

Sarge69

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

The main problem is in every story I read about such things there is one thing in common most of the people involved instead of trying to be polite and respectful all seem to get argumentative and defensive and instead of explaining what and why they are doing it. If they were not jerks about it and showed just a little common courtesy they would not have nowhere near as many problems as they do.
Actually any business has a right to ban them from their establishment as long as the are not discriminating because of race,religion,age or sexual preference what everyone seems to forget is not only photographers have rights so does everyone else.

sarge69 Loc: Ft Myers, FL

hangman45 wrote:

The main problem is in every story I read about su... (show quote)

Right on.

Sarge69

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Censorship always tics me off, especially when the police get involved. However just because you have the right to take a photo doesn't always mean you should. You need to exercise common sense. Also, under most circumstances, if someone asks you not to photograph them or to delete photos you have already taken of them, why not do what they ask? Again use common sense.

Tea8 Loc: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plain.

My thought was do any of these people have a problem with or get creeped out by someone who walks by with a cell phone camera and snaps a picture? That kind of thing happens a lot more than we realize. Honestly if asked how many people when asked would give permission for a photo of them to be put on a website like people of walmart to be made fun of? And yet that happens every day and it's done inside private property with a cell phone.

I can see both sides of the story. He took the photos from a public place and as far as we know he doesn't plan to do anything malicious or derogatory with them. However, I can see where a woman would question what a strange man was doing out taking photos of them and other people.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

sarge69 wrote:

My first thought was also he had a right to take the photos in a public place. But then I thought of it as one woman objected.

I don't care if he is in a public area, if a person is the subject of his photo, that person should be asked if they object. If they do, they are off limits. He refused to delete a picture of a person who found out he was taking her picture and that is wrong. He has infringed on HER rights even with a telephoto lens.

Sarge69

Good thing we live in America where when a person is on the street they have no expected right to privacy and can be photographed...he didn't infringe on her rights at all.

It's NOT a crime to photograph people in public and it's not a violation of a person's rights to be photographed in public....

Just because someone doesn't like what you have to say or photograph or write, doesn't mean that they can sensor you...hello...this is America...that's the basis of our first amendment right...

Mallardo Loc: NW Louisiana

Rights, rights, rights. I get so sick of people whining about rights getting violated but never talking about the responsibilities that go along with those rights. If nothing else, it's about simple common courtesy. You remember that, it was an ideal that our parents lived by. Just me 2 cents.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Mallardo wrote:

Rights, rights, rights. I get so sick of people whining about rights getting violated but never talking about the responsibilities that go along with those rights. If nothing else, it's about simple common courtesy. You remember that, it was an ideal that our parents lived by. Just me 2 cents.

If you are saying that it's not courteous to take a picture of someone in public then that's fine...that's your personal opinion...but remember, someone else could be of a different opinion...and that's equally valid..that's WHY the founding fathers put down on paper those "rights" that you hate to hear about...because then someone who "disagrees" with what a person is doing cannot punish them for it.

Personally, I think it's hypocritical to enjoy our rights and the denounce others for enjoying the rights that they do...

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

hangman45 wrote:

Actually any business has a right to ban them from their establishment as long as the are not discriminating because of race,religion,age or sexual preference what everyone seems to forget is not only photographers have rights so does everyone else.

But wasn't he on a public street?

Quote from the article:

Quote:

He insists that all his photos are taken on public property, not inside stores or through the windows or blinds of private homes.

Not only that...did you read this part of the article?

Quote:

Church Street is, by definition, the most public ... (show quote)

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

rpavich wrote:

quote=hangman45 br Actually any business has a r... (show quote)

They did not ban him from the street they banned him from 67 different establishments which is within their rights to do so seems he is not happy about others using their rights he thinks his trumps all others.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

hangman45 wrote:

quote=rpavich quote=hangman45 br Actually any b... (show quote)

Right....which he didn't enter....

Mallardo Loc: NW Louisiana

rpavich wrote:

quote=Mallardo Rights, rights, rights. I get so s... (show quote)

I'm not denouncing rights. I'm denouncing lack of responsibility. Big difference.

hangman45 Loc: Hueytown Alabama

rpavich wrote:

quote=hangman45 quote=rpavich quote=hangman45 ... (show quote)

He was never arrested only questioned on what he was doing so it really is a non story his right were never abused

Quote from article
Lieutenant Jen Morrison with the Burlington Police Department says shes not at liberty to discuss the details of Scotts trespass order, or even confirm that he was issued one. Oddly, its not because theres a criminal investigation pending; Scott hasnt been charged with a crime. Rather, she explains, its because the police dont decide whether to issue trespass orders; they simply issue them at the behest of businesses and property owners.

The following Monday, March 1, a Burlington police officer again showed up at Scotts workplace, and this time issued him a one-year universal trespass order that bans him from 67 establishments on the Church Street Marketplace. If Scott enters any of them, he could be arrested.