Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Why don't you try reading, and thinking about, what other > people write before you respond. That's exactly what I did, and that's why I asked the question. > Nathan didn't say that photography is a form of child > abuse and you know it. He did say that people's fears > have been heightened. I know, and I fail to see the connection between their fears and ordinary photography, and he failed to explain it. - ----- Fer God's sake, Anthony, how does a parent on a playground know who's a child molester and who's a member of the LUG? I can certainly understand how the average parent would think that the only person who would want photos of their children would either be them - the parents - or some sort of pervert. MOST people use cameras and photography to chronicle their own lives and take pretty pictures of places they've been, NOT to do street photography of strangers in their own backyards. I'm not saying that this is a pleasant situation. It's not. I remember back to the early 70s when I in fact made some nice extra money by going to a park in Georgetown, in D.C., photographing children, and then approaching their parents, nannies, etc., offering to call them when I got my contacts back...But times have changed. > No, Anthony. But just as the person who crosses the street > against the light doesn't "deserve" to be hit ... People are hit under such conditions because it is physically impossible to stop cars in time to spare them. - ------ The point here is not why the cars can't stop, but that the person crossing the street against the light KNOWS that there is a physical risk involved in doing so. - ------ This is very different from very deliberately hitting someone with a fist--no law of physics requires that. - ---- You are absolutely correct. No law of physics requires it. However, in this day and age there does appear to be a twisted law of human behavior - perhaps testosterone induced - that inspires, if not requires it. And ignoring this "law" could well get one a busted nose and, far worse, busted Leica. - ------- > ... so the photographer who photographs people for no valid > reason against their objection ought to know that he or she > may well face what is of course illegal physical assault. It's unfortunate that so many violent people are out there. I personally can't understand why having one's picture taken in public would move anyone to such irrational behavior. -- Anthony - ---- Yes, it is very unfortunate. But as to not understanding why someone would behave that way, turn it around - why would someone who is shooting for "pleasure," rather than for news biz, completely ignore a perfectly reasonable request to forgo taking a photo of a private citizen? That, too, strikes me as unfortunate and irrational. Cheers.....(And, believe it or not, I do NOT mean this or any of my other strongly felt comments of the past 24 hours to be taken personally. I just feel strongly about this. B. D.