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: S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 22:11:53 -0800
References: <E16HeSr-0002lg-00@smtp10.atl.mindspring.net>

No, of course not. But I think the definition of what is the press and
the entitlement of heightened protection is pertinent here. 

 Slboodan Dimitrov

"John M. Sikes, Jr." wrote:
> 
> 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
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "John M. Sikes, Jr." <mcnaught@mindspring.com> (Re: [Leica] when is a pj not a pj?)