[Leica] [NO Leica] WAS: [w/Leica!] LEGAL STUFF

["Paul Schiemer" <schiemer@magicnet.net>]

Ted Grant wrote this:
> Regarding the above topic..."in court photography" I think we in Canada
> have the right attitude about cameras in the court room. "they're not
> allowed, TV or otherwise."

Actually I think it's more a matter of the 'sunshine' law, where government
(and Courts) do their business in front of everyone and anyone. When it goes
behind closed doors, aspersions to legitimacy may occur.

> Besides who cares what the people look like in a court room
> just sitting there doing whatever it is they're doing, picking their nose
> or their ass, It's really non-relevent subject material, OJ or otherwise.

> I know a bunch of you US lads are going to come back with freedom of the
> press, the amendments etc. but that just doesn't wash! After all who really
> cares, rarely has there been smashing great images taken.

I've seen two outstanding photos taken in a courtroom setting; one of
Clarence Darrow arguing a case before a small town Justice in upstate New
York, and one of a woman gesturing emphatically toward the defendant at the
sentencing phase of his trial for raping and killing her 12 year old
daughter.
That second image was a powerful, compelling vision of torment and rage.
Without the byline it was still riveting to view.
The Darrow photograph was just magnificent (maybe even staged?) with him,
arm up in grand gesture, hand grasping at his lapel. He looked quite
dignified, even with slightly unkempt hair. He was, purportedly, quite an
orator. [If I didn't know it was Darrow would I have still found it
interesting as a photograph? I dunno.]

Of course, this slightly tangential bend of the original posting opens a
whole 'nother can of worms best left shut?