Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Perhaps, before venturing out on such photo expeditions it is best to be armed with copies of the appropriate legal opinions that buttress your position. If the rent-a-cops don't heed, the Blue badges will certainly have to heed, lest they be hit with false arrest charges. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest > 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.