Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, I made it up. As I had press credentials around my neck, I was acting in the public interest in their right to know, without any "other intents." The contractors, on the other hand, clearly had "other intents," and therefore is not protected under the 1st amend as such. Now, what those intents where, only a formal investigation with a proscribed mechanism under the law could of deduced it. In other words, either a police investigation or a civil lawsuit. Considering how volatile the environment is, with regard to lawsuits, what where the odds in that up-scale neighborhood that some member of the public would of seen the videotaping as intrusive, and worthy of their time to address it? Slobodan Dimitrov Mxsmanic wrote: > > Slobodan Dimitrov writes: > > > I went back to my car and got out a camera > > and knocked out a quick roll of chromes. While > > this was going on, the non-union contractor > > started to video tape the leafleting. I walked > > up to the two individuals and told them that > > they could be in for a lawsuit from any of > > the passersby. As it was assumed that they had > > a reasonable expectation of privacy outside the > > store, in spit of being on Target property. > > Why was it okay for you to take photographs, but not okay for them to videotape? > And why would anyone have a reasonable expectation of privacy outside the store?