I deleted it. Nevermind.

[sepiareverb]

I thought there might be some serious discussion about these changes in Civil Liberties in the US. But alas no.

Apparently we're the villains, f@ck even those of us with cameras think so.

[Deep Fried]

That was a serious discussion. Me not agreeing with you didn't need to end it.

I would urge you to really think about why she might have gotten so angry. Understanding another person has merit

[finguanzo]

Right when I was writing a comment....
agreed, probably would have turned ugly anyway, there are too many people afraid of their own shadow, let alone someone walking around with a camera.

[reagan]

ha, sepiareverb. I was wondering where my comment went - I hit *post* and it went *poof*. Funny thing, I agreed ... it ended with "Let's face it, we're just bad people." *joke*

Anyways, hope your experience at the back door didn't ruin your shooting day with friends. ~ cheers

[finguanzo]

Deap Fried, in reply to your comment:

I really dont see how this has anything to do with street photograpy, he was taking a picture of a store, which I dont see as menacing....

Im sure the person would have reacted the same if you were taking a landscape, and her property was somewhere in the background, or nowhere near it...
"I'm not interested in any art that makes the subject scared enough to call the police. "
There are plenty of people that would be scared enough to call the police no matter what you were doing.. whether it were art or walking down the street..
That's the problem, your insecurities ( or whatever it might be )should not allow you to call the police on me, and have them issue anything....

[Deep Fried]

But if people are that scared do we not have some kind of obligation to ease their fears after the fact? There is a reason that people get freaked out like this, the world we live in has so many dangers both real and imagined. She imagined one, but is it her fault for being afraid?

[reagan]

Originally Posted by Deep Fried

...but is it her fault for being afraid?

I don't see it as my obligation to control the fears of every stranger I encounter.

[finguanzo]

Your right, I have a friend that's deathly afraid of cats..
Lets just get rid of them all to ease his fears....

[brainwood]

Bob sorry you deleted . Your story is shocking even to someone in the uk with our own portrayal of the press and photographers in general as a threat. The odd law of trespass that can be issued when no offence has been committed by anyone sounds completely nuts and I am surprised there has not been a campaign against it.

My understanding is as yours that photography in a public place or from a public place is totally legal and even morally justified . This law makes a nonsense of that.

Chris

[FrankS]

One is not responsible for the neuroses of others.
It's their problem, not yours.

[reagan]

Originally Posted by FrankS

One is not responsible for the neuroses of others.
It's their problem, not yours.

However, I am now afraid to go out and take pictures ... and I lay the blame squarely at the feet of youz guyz.

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by reagan

However, I am now afraid to go out and take pictures ... and I lay the blame squarely at the feet of youz guyz.

So sue us.

[reagan]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

So sue us.

Can't ... skeerd of lawyers.

[loquax ludens]

I think your thread would have ended up with plenty of discussion of civil liberties. You have to give these things time.

I believe every person has a private and personal right to restrict anyone they want from entering their property, whether commercial or private, but I don't think they have a right to stop someone from recording on film what their eyes can plainly see from outside the property.

I also don't believe, however, that anyone has the right to use the threat of State-sponsored violence (criminal charges, in this case) against anyone who hasn't actually harmed them.

[hlockwood]

Originally Posted by loquax ludens

I think your thread would have ended up with plenty of discussion of civil liberties. You have to give these things time.

I believe every person has a private and personal right to restrict anyone they want from entering their property, whether commercial or private, but I don't think they have a right to stop someone from recording on film what their eyes can plainly see from outside the property.

I also don't believe, however, that anyone has the right to use the threat of State-sponsored violence (criminal charges, in this case) against anyone who hasn't actually harmed them.

Not so fast. If a commercial property is generally open to the public, but a particular individual is barred from entering that property, there had better be a legitimate reason for doing so. Discrimination, normally a neutral word, obviously cannot be based upon the race, religion, etc., etc., of the individual barred. For that reason, I'm surprised that the action of the police in such cases has not been challenged in the courts. It would seem that the owner of the property would have to show cause.

Harry

[loquax ludens]

Originally Posted by hlockwood

Not so fast. If a commercial property is generally open to the public, but a particular individual is barred from entering that property, there had better be a legitimate reason for doing so. Discrimination, normally a neutral word, obviously cannot be based upon the race, religion, etc., etc., of the individual barred. For that reason, I'm surprised that the action of the police in such cases has not been challenged in the courts. It would seem that the owner of the property would have to show cause.

Harry

Harry, my views are not mainstream, perhaps. I'm not expressing what I think the law says, but what I think is right. I believe property owners have an absolute right to decide who may access their property. It is irrelevant, in my mind, whether or not the property is commercial and generally open to the public, or closed to the public, or non-commercial. The law in the US and much of the world violates the rights of property owners when it prevents them from exercising their own discretion about who may enter their property, in my view.

I do not like most kinds of discrimination, especially when it is based on characteristics that I regard as unimportant, like race, religion, sexual orientation or identity, national origin, language, citizenship, age, possession and use of a camera, and so forth. On the other hand, discriminating against troublemakers, gang members, crooks, theives, and vagabonds doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Whether anyone else likes it or not, whether it is legal or not, I am convinced that a property owner has a right to determine how his property is used, and by whom.

[Deep Fried]

to separate the two issues; yes I think the police trespass notice is insane. I'm far more interested in why she would go that far. I wouldn't feel good about making someone react that way. It's easy to just get mad at her, but I'd rather contemplate the deeper issues. Hence the serious discussion.

[back alley]

i'm getting t-shirts made saying...'i'm just a harmless artist'...

[FrankS]

"I'm a dangerous artist!"

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by FrankS

"I'm a dangerous artist!"

I did think about "I'm a terrorist not a photographer" ... but decided it may be too confusing

[robklurfield]

Bob, if this about the florist and the cops ... I'm ready to join the march/protest.

[zauhar]

I missed this before the OP deleted. As I b-tched in another thread, I have been regularly shouted at recently, both in the City of Brotherly Love and in a suburb I am forced to spend time in every week. As I said elsewhere, some people's feelings seem permanently broken, so they're not worth bothering about.

But if the cops are being summoned that's another matter, and believe me they will always be pissed off at the photographer.

Randy

[Crazy Fedya]

I had a situation in Brooklyn once. I was taking a photo of Manhattan Ave stores from across the street, when older lady came running across the Avenue, ran up to me and said: You can't take my picture without my permission.
to which I calmly replied:
Do you relly think you are interesting enough for me to take your picture?

I was using a 35mm lens, so she would have been very insignificant to the whole scene, but my question left me without answer, since she turned around and walked away.

I don't know why people are so paranoid when they someone raise camera to their eye, but then they have no problem with cell phone cams. Go figure.

[hlockwood]

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

Posts like the one the OP deleted are very common. It's been the same way for a long, long time, blame Bush or blame the terrorists. Learn to live with it.
Same thing with "I got ripped off on eBay" posts. I don't understand the point.

I would have thought the point was obvious. Bush, terrorists or eBay ripoffs have nothing to do with it. If an individual is prevented from exercising an apparently legitimate right, the action has to pass legal scrutiny. (See my previous post.)

Harry

[reagan]

If I were barred from someone's property for carrying a camera, I would just assume they've seen my work.

Originally Posted by C.Hudson

The OP was not prevented from photographing.

True. And IMHO, from a hobbyist-tourist-photog point of view, that's the main thing. She didn't because she couldn't, so she did the only thing she had the legal right to do. Why? Who knows? Who knows what's going on in her world? Her life. Her deal. Frame the *ticket*. Move on.

The Post Office? Yep, I agree, the days of camera carriers not [possibly] being seen as suspicious around any gov't buildings is long gone. We're just going to have to live with it and pushing back too hard will just frustrate us. Who's got the time?

Face it. Film shooters are just a bad seed. Interesting discussion, though.