The other issue is as said by Timmore “photographing someone in a degrading, violative way without her consent”. She obviously felt that was the case. The police who asked the photographers to delete images must have had a reason for that. One guy had taken multiple pics of her. Why? What was that about?

And Freedom of speech doesn’t give a photographer the right to take multiple photos of a pretty girl on the street and make her feel unsafe. That is wrong.

The hard part is where do you draw the line? Times have changed people today want privacy. As photographers we can respect people’s privacy without infringing on our own first amendment rights. Because if we don’t then our actions might be restricted by legislative action.

Even as a former New Yorker (Brooklynite to be specific) that has seen some pretty crazy stuff go down, that story seems bizarre. Think about it- A young lady, with an expectation of PRIVACY on the streets of New York City, engages in physical combat with street photographers? Really? She detains a guy for 40 minutes until the cops arrive? Well, she is of Korean extraction and maybe she is into Korean Marshall Arts. One of my hand- to- hand combat instructors, in the Army was Hapkido Master-NASTY STUFF! SO...then... the police come on the scene and seize the guy's film? Is the story from the former Soviet Union? Oh- maybe NORTH Korea!

Well, I know that I have the right to photograph anyone in a public place...etc, etc., etc, but it is 2020 and I just don't do that anymore.

Back in the late 60s, I worked as a photographer in a daily newspaper. On a slow news day in the summer, the editors sent me to the park to photograph the kids in the wading pool. The parents would come over to me and ask me he the picture would be in the paper and if the could buy copies for themselves. Nowadays, I would probably be set upon and murdered even before the cops got there! Bathing beauties at the beach? FORGETABOUTIT!

Last year, I was shooting the EXTERIOR of a new school building for the architect who designed it. One of the teachers and a security guard ran out of the building and yelled "there are children in there...you can't take pictures! Well- fortunately I had a letter of permission with me and there were no kids in sight. I had to remind them that I could not X-Ray the building and see the children inside.

Peter Gowland was America's foremost glamour photographer of women. He also manufactured Gowlandflex cameras. I met Peter and his wife on several occasions- I purchased 4 Gowlanflexes from him. He was a lovely, ethical and kind gentlemen of the first order and an excellent photographer. His wife was just as nice and ran his business affairs. At one of our meetings, I brought along one of his books "How to Photograph Woman" that I had purchased years earlier as a student. I asked him to autograph it for me. In that book, he mentions that when he spotted an attractive lady on the street, he would introduce himself and give her his business can and ask if she would model for him. He suggested, in the book, that this would be a good way to get folks to the model in exchange for photography and build a portfolio. Well- don't try that nowadays and if you do, make sure your medical insurance is paid up!

It's insane! Point a camera at somebody and you are perceived as a pervert, voyeur, rapist, worse or God know what else.

If I have to shoot anythg in a public place, I am armed with a clipboard full of wavers, permission letters, passes, releases of every kind. I'm an old photographer with a grey beard and I don't remember ALL my self-defence moves! I don't wanna tangle with cops, security folks, rent-a-cops or irate civilians

I'm fortunate. As a commercial and portrait photographer PEOPLE come to me because they want or need to be photographed. Just for good measure, our studio policy is "don't eat the food (on food shoots) and don't touch the models, unless they are model airplanes"!

I keep thinking about what Timmore wrote. There are two issues in conflict. The first is free speech. This is a right guaranteed by our Constitution and Americans are apt to take it seriously and defend it. The other issue is as said by Timmore “photographing someone in a degrading, violative way without her consent”. She obviously felt that was the case. The police who asked the photographers to delete images must have had a reason for that. One guy had taken multiple pics of her. Why? What was that about?

I will defend free speech but there are limits such as when it causes harm or is intended to cause harm.

And Freedom of speech doesn’t give a photographer the right to take multiple photos of a pretty girl on the street and make her feel unsafe. That is wrong.

The hard part is where do you draw the line? Times have changed people today want privacy. As photographers we can respect people’s privacy without infringing on our own first amendment rights. Because if we don’t then our actions might be restricted by legislative action.