Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
You seem to have forgotten (let's be cynical here) the unwritten journalism rule, "If it bleeds, it leads." Being less cynical, your notion would outlaw most disaster documentation, war photography, and many other genres. At any rate, the LAW not only allows public photography but forbids the police from interfering. I sympathize with accident victims...I have been one on more than one occasion...but I have MAJOR respect for the far more important 1ST AMENDMENT.
You can correct me if I am wrong. But most of the incidents or examples that you mentioned are normally outside of The United States. Again, I am ONLY talking about someone receiving emergency care or treatment. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but in this country, for the most part, for whatever reasons, medical emergencies, depending on the severity are shield from the public eye when being treated in public. Could be privacy for the patient, could be for safety reasons or some type of mock way of trying to keep the area sanitized. I don't know.
And I also believe STRONGLY in our first amendment but if you or someone close to you is outside and in need some type of emergency medical treatment, should my belief in the first amendment give me the right to walk over there and start taking pictures? You don't know me and I dont know you. Tough question? If it was your loved one, would you want a stranger taking their picture under these circumstances? And for what purpose? I guess it is more of a individual's choice. Our freedom in America allows us to make these choices.