Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/22[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
S Dimitrov writes: > Well, I made it up. How does this conduct differ from that of a rent-a-cop harassing a photographer? > The contractors, on the other hand, clearly > had "other intents," and therefore is not > protected under the 1st amend as such. Clear or not, it is not your business to police them. > The contractors, on the other hand, clearly had > "other intents," and therefore is not protected > under the 1st amend as such. Were you acting as their legal counsel? > Now, what those intents where, only a formal > investigation with a proscribed mechanism > under the law could of deduced it. This statement conflicts with your previous statement, in which you said that the contracts "clearly had 'other intents.'" How can you know that they had other intents if only a formal investigation would be capable of uncovering them? > In other words, either a police investigation > or a civil lawsuit. Then perhaps it is best left up to the police and the lawyers, no? > 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? I'd guess at least ten thousand to one. No member of the public would really care. It sounds like you have quite a double standard. This does not seem conducive to maintaining First-Amendment freedoms or the freedom to photograph generally.