flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

The police agreed with her? She assaulted and committed Battery on the photographer! You only have to touch someone, or detain them against their will! He would have been within his rights to demand a police supervisor to straighten the situation out. Of course, extreme measures are sometimes necessary in some cases...like copies of the pertinent laws to show to the policemen.
Nowadays, there are people of middling intelligence and self-righteous attitude who can make real pests of themselves, like one Big, Ugly member of one photo site I belonged to who stated "Nobody better take pictures of my kids!" Of course, he did and posted some of kids not his own. As far as the police demanding to see his photos...not without a warrant! I am not a lawyer, so consultation with one about laws in your jurisdiction might be a good thing.

Vietnam Vet

Snowflakes. You can photograph anyone in public because there is no expectation of privacy.

timoore Loc: Bordeaux, France

I couldn't read the NY Daily News article in Europe, so instead had to read the report on it on the PetaPixel site. I'm not surprised by the reaction here, and as an American citizen and native New Yorker I basically agree. But as a French citizen, this line jumped out at me: "any act of photographing someone in a degrading, violative way without her consent in public is wrong." Now, the author goes off the deep end of feminist rhetoric after that, but think hard; do you really disagree with that statement? In our (French) Constitution we have language based on the "Rights of Men and Citizens" document from the French Revolution which protect private life and the dignity of individuals, even in public. I don't think that's a bad thing, even it constrains my street photography. We also have a strong right to self-expression, so things tend to balance out.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Yes I agree with “any act of photographing someone in a degrading, violative way without her consent in public is wrong“

I would changed the word ‘her’ to ‘their’. It applies equally to all.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Again, in this society of victimhood with so many looking for reasons to be offended every day, the sad fact is that the desire for this kind of ruling is not surprising.

Of course, the problem is how one defines "a degrading violative way". If a street photographer captures someone, say, picking their nose (not even as the main subject but just in the background), can that person sue? What about a person "caught" smoking? Disgusting habit - right? Why, sue the guy for taking their photo doing such a disgraceful thing! Or a mother breastfeeding her baby on a park bench - ewwww! Right?

The lamebrains who would pander to people demanding something like this are doing just that - pandering. I think it would be a very fuzzy line that might divide what Peter feels is offensive and what Paul thinks is not.

cameranut Loc: North Carolina

If that's all she has to worry about in 2020, she has it made.
I wish someone wanted to take one of my ugly mug.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Not really!!!

Examples were cited of “questionable pornographic behavior. We must be mindful of what is in our viewfinder. All that is necessary is a disgruntled on looker who go in the way. I avoid street confrontation as much as possible.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

I don't think there is such a law. The police can only act if a law has been broken. Not as your personal enforcer.

Ollieboy

Is the next step to have government street cameras removed? Snowflakes at their peak behavior.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Yes, things are getting bad. In Miami and in two different occasions I have been threatened with a call to the police. In one occasion while photographing in a public park a woman was running after me because I have just "photographed" her son. I explained to her that I do not photograph children without parent's consent but there was no way she could understand. I reviewed the images with her and her son was not there. In another occasion a woman came to my home to ask me why I was photographing her daughter. Lots of explanations once again including that I was not photographing her daughter and I invited her to call the police if she thought her daughter was in my images. She walked away and never bothered me again.

I do not advocate photographing anybody without consent in such a way that it is obvious that that particular person is been photographed. Street photography can be done in a very respectful manner when someone requests an explanation of why his or her picture was taken. I have seen people get very nasty when a camera has been pointed at them. Things have changed a lot and although street photography is not one of my favorite when I do street photography I am careful.

In the case of the young lady from Korea the person photographing her kept on taking several shots and that obviously looks suspicious. I for sure do not want someone I do not know to keep snapping pictures of me in public. If the young lady gain the battle street photography in NY could be totally illegal and I do not mean pointing a camera on purpose to an individual. To a certain extent that is an invasion of privacy even in a public place. We have to use more common sense.

Retaining a person for 40 min. is also an invasion of privacy. Asking to destroy the files without consent from Court is another violation of rights. I am no lawyer but as I said we have to use common sense.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Read the article, there is a link to her twitter page at the end. ironically, she has put her photo out to the internet. Snowflake, and she tries to walk it back saying she is a fan of Garry Winogrand.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Better article taking the other side. https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-photography-is-a-basic-right-20201019-o6jltewacrb2nbk5ycwe6yq4va-story.html

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

" Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground, mother earth will swallow you lay your body down"

Totally understand the right of the first amendment, albeit it's photographers like those replying to this thread that give the craft it's bad name... No the paparazzi doesn't have an ethical right to do what they wish...

In 2008, the jury at a British inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing of princess Diana through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the paparazzi for following vehicles.

The UHH is over populated with dirty old men who's ethics are archaic...
Perhaps you might pursue an "Open camera Carry" law to protect photographers...

berchman Loc: South Central PA

What, precisely, is a "dirty old man" as contrasted to a clean old man?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

You are not a troll don’t act like one. You make some good points then you throw it all away with childish language and insults. You are better than that.