| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2012 04:04:47 PM · #1 |
Didn't find another thread, so started this. Apparently this was last week and I am late seeing it.
Ninth Circuit: Photojoirnalist's Access is a "Fundamental Constitutional Right"
This website also has some other interesting reading...or am I the last one to the dance, lol!
Thoughts? Comments? |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:36:00 PM · #2 |
| Why would they make her stand in one place and allow other people to stand elsewhere? I'm sure we're missing some details. But yaaay for our rights! |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:41:56 PM · #3 |
I think it was the whole mess with the BLM round-up and they were going to destroy the animals for "population control". I'll see if I can find the previous info. BLM was trying to keep it relatively private as there were some images of dead animals and shots showing the inhumane treatment of the wild horses.
Cattle and sheep ranches are calling the wild mustangs "pests". At lease they have stopped castrating the stallions!
But...this was about the rights of the photographer and what she wanted to capture, but was denied!
Message edited by author 2012-02-23 16:50:36. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 06:01:00 PM · #4 |
I wouldn't start jumping for joy over this decision.
Yes the initial decision was overturned, but upon reading the decision it becomes quite clear that better planning on the part of the authorities could have prevented this fiasco.
I would wager good money that in future, the governing bodies will make certain that all their activities will withstand scrutiny and it might well be that the photographer will be no further ahead.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 07:09:11 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I wouldn't start jumping for joy over this decision...
Ray |
I tend to agree with your interpretation Ray. I still am bouyed by the court's assertion that her right to access for photography is a fundamental constitutional right. That is strong language, and it's much-needed and refreshing.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2012 08:54:58 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I still am bouyed by the court's assertion that her right to access for photography is a fundamental constitutional right. That is strong language, and it's much-needed and refreshing. |
Especially if it extends to photographing the police and other government authorities during the conduct of their business in public places. |
|
|
|
02/24/2012 05:32:48 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I still am bouyed by the court's assertion that her right to access for photography is a fundamental constitutional right. That is strong language, and it's much-needed and refreshing. |
Especially if it extends to photographing the police and other government authorities during the conduct of their business in public places. |
Ah but you see, in some situations the authorities, be they the police or other first responders could seek to have the journalists placed in a certain area for their own safety, and that would definitely past the tests alluded to in this instance.
It will not become (excuse the pun) a free range issue.
Ray |
|
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: 07/28/2025 06:25:02 AM EDT.
