| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2006 07:05:30 PM · #26 |
I've noticed a lot of large stores now have a TV at the enterance showing you walking in. I think this serves two purposes now: 1) to deter crime but 2) to cover their asses for videoing you. This is their "by walking through this door you concent to being videod" release...
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 12:23:00 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Does the law treat photography and video/audio captures as one in the same? |
There are several issues in this thread:
Photograpy
Video recording
Audio recording (eavesdropping)
telephone recording (wiretapping)
A camcorder would perform both video _and_ audio recording.
The law differs by state, and eavesdropping is treated differently than wiretapping, which are treated differently than video recording and photography.
See //www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p01.html and //www.rcfp.org/handbook/c03p02.html for details. |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 12:28:39 PM · #28 |
| As far as free speech goes, Obscenity does not seem to be protected. See: //www.rcfp.org/handbook/c05p08.html |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 12:35:40 PM · #29 |
But there's a major difference between publishing and distributing materials (for profit), and holding up a sign in a public place to "petition the government for redress of grievances." |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 12:53:50 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by NathanW:
As long as the cameraman wasn't actually in the way of the police doing their job or putting himself/others in danger there isn't really much they can do about it.
As for the reason the kid was being detained...I don't have a problem with it. I think the only reason they took him anywhere was because of the crowd(and the camera). if everyone was calm they'd probably have left with just telling the kid not to hold up that specific sign.
I fully think that there is too much vulgarity in the world, and we're all getting complacent about it. I really don't want to be driving down the road and have my 7-year-old asking me what the sign that guy was holding said. "Fuck Bush." is not something that needs to be in the public eye. The cop was right, Change the sign to not have the profane language and it would have been a non-issue.
I'm not even a prude, I just wish that people knew of better ways to express themselves than vulgarity. |
I agree with you 100% Freedom of speech, but please folks be decent about it. |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 01:15:40 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
Originally posted by NathanW:
As long as the cameraman wasn't actually in the way of the police doing their job or putting himself/others in danger there isn't really much they can do about it.
As for the reason the kid was being detained...I don't have a problem with it. I think the only reason they took him anywhere was because of the crowd(and the camera). if everyone was calm they'd probably have left with just telling the kid not to hold up that specific sign.
I fully think that there is too much vulgarity in the world, and we're all getting complacent about it. I really don't want to be driving down the road and have my 7-year-old asking me what the sign that guy was holding said. "Fuck Bush." is not something that needs to be in the public eye. The cop was right, Change the sign to not have the profane language and it would have been a non-issue.
I'm not even a prude, I just wish that people knew of better ways to express themselves than vulgarity. |
I agree with you 100% Freedom of speech, but please folks be decent about it. |
Suppose I held up a sign which read "F*** Bush!"
Can you prove I don't mean that I wish he were "FREE" of the pernicious influence of Karl "Rasputin" Rove and THE Dick Cheney? So, it follows that any obscenity associated with that sign would exist only in YOUR mind.
Why should MY freedom of speech be infringed because of YOUR dirty mind?
Furthermore, even if I chose to use the "other F-word" I would merely be conforming to prevailing community standards, in complete accord with Supreme Court precedent.
The Constitution/Bill Of Rights explicitly grants the citizenry the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. What part of "no law" and "abridge" is unclear?
Sometimes, you just have to use the word which even the President will understand.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 01:58:56 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by boomtap:
Originally posted by NathanW:
As long as the cameraman wasn't actually in the way of the police doing their job or putting himself/others in danger there isn't really much they can do about it.
As for the reason the kid was being detained...I don't have a problem with it. I think the only reason they took him anywhere was because of the crowd(and the camera). if everyone was calm they'd probably have left with just telling the kid not to hold up that specific sign.
I fully think that there is too much vulgarity in the world, and we're all getting complacent about it. I really don't want to be driving down the road and have my 7-year-old asking me what the sign that guy was holding said. "Fuck Bush." is not something that needs to be in the public eye. The cop was right, Change the sign to not have the profane language and it would have been a non-issue.
I'm not even a prude, I just wish that people knew of better ways to express themselves than vulgarity. |
I agree with you 100% Freedom of speech, but please folks be decent about it. |
Suppose I held up a sign which read "F*** Bush!"
Can you prove I don't mean that I wish he were "FREE" of the pernicious influence of Karl "Rasputin" Rove and THE Dick Cheney? So, it follows that any obscenity associated with that sign would exist only in YOUR mind.
Why should MY freedom of speech be infringed because of YOUR dirty mind?
Furthermore, even if I chose to use the "other F-word" I would merely be conforming to prevailing community standards, in complete accord with Supreme Court precedent.
The Constitution/Bill Of Rights explicitly grants the citizenry the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. What part of "no law" and "abridge" is unclear?
Sometimes, you just have to use the word which even the President will understand. |
Sorry, I forgot the object of the "F word". Since it is the President, the first amendment rights are stronger because it is political speech.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2006 03:12:18 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Suppose I held up a sign which read "F*** Bush!" |
I'd have no problem with that. However, I still would rather not to have to explain the word fuck to my 7-year-old. A little restraint would still be nice. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 05:10:26 PM · #34 |
That relates to porn.
There was a case here in Michigan where a man was arrested for violating an old local ordinance against using foul language in front of women and children. Link
At some point, the law was ruled unconstitutional |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 05:44:44 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by NathanW:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Suppose I held up a sign which read "F*** Bush!" |
I'd have no problem with that. However, I still would rather not to have to explain the word fuck to my 7-year-old. A little restraint would still be nice. |
It is lame for somebody to be so selfish to think that they should hang a vulger sign in the sight of a young person in the name of free speech. It is like blowing smoke in the face of another person. While it might be your right to do so, doing so makes you a jerk.
People should start putting others needs ahead of their own more often. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 06:14:18 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Originally posted by NathanW:
As long as the cameraman wasn't actually in the way of the police doing their job or putting himself/others in danger there isn't really much they can do about it.
|
Nathan I would politely disagree. Read thru this article
|
The only reason he could be charged in that locality was because of the audio capability. I'm not aware of any laws against video. I am aware of many, many, different laws about recording audio without a parties knowledge. In my locality it's legal if at least one party is aware. ;)
|
|
|
|
11/16/2006 08:07:52 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Originally posted by NathanW:
As long as the cameraman wasn't actually in the way of the police doing their job or putting himself/others in danger there isn't really much they can do about it.
|
Nathan I would politely disagree. Read thru this article
|
The only reason he could be charged in that locality was because of the audio capability. I'm not aware of any laws against video. I am aware of many, many, different laws about recording audio without a parties knowledge. In my locality it's legal if at least one party is aware. ;) |
I think audio would have something to do with this. At least in some states. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 09:34:55 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
People should start putting others needs ahead of their own more often. |
Perhaps starting with the aforementioned Mr. Bush ... |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 09:57:34 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by boomtap:
People should start putting others needs ahead of their own more often. |
Perhaps starting with the aforementioned Mr. Bush ... |
Well the only person I can change is myself. I cannot envoke change without example. If the masses were to be less selfish we might elect less selfish leaders. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 09:58:56 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by boomtap:
People should start putting others needs ahead of their own more often. |
Perhaps starting with the aforementioned Mr. Bush ... |
Well the only person I can change is myself. I cannot envoke change without example. If the masses were to be less selfish we might elect less selfish leaders. |
ya,I was going to say that I can't start with Bush. I gotta start with me. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 10:26:27 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by karmat:
ya,I was going to say that I can't start with Bush. I gotta start with me. |
Of course, but doesn't it make you ask, why not him, when it could affect so many more people with far less personal sacrifice? |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 10:30:02 PM · #42 |
I said the same thing about Clinton. But there was nothing I could do about it. Edit to add. I never said "$#%$ Clinton" on a bumper sticker because that would effect the lives of others like kids and the elderly...lol to the last part.
Message edited by author 2006-11-16 22:31:52. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 03:47:10 PM EDT.
