Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] when is a pj not a pj?
From: "John M. Sikes, Jr." <mcnaught@mindspring.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 00:14:30 -0500

Libel has nothing to do with it.

- ----------
>From: S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net>
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] when is a pj not a pj?
>Date: Sat, Dec 22, 2001, 12:06 AM
>

> You might want to read this little trifle;
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C48996%2C00.html
> Speaks volumes.
>  Slobodan Dimitrov
>
> "John M. Sikes, Jr." wrote:
>>
>>  "Photo journalists" is  an approbation given by the trade to itself. There
>> is no civil or criminal statute or principle of law which exempts self
>> styled PJ's from the consequences of their actions.
>> When two persons act in knowing concert, as to outsiders they are equally
>> responsible, as principal and agent in civil law and as co- conspirators in
>> criminal law, regardless what names they give themselves.
>> º
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] when is a pj not a pj?)