Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > RFF Polls

View Poll Results: Is California Senate Bill 606 a good law or a bad law?
This is a good law 8 5.30%
This is a bad law 86 56.95%
This law is neither good or bad 10 6.62%
Children must be protected from photographers at all costs 3 1.99%
This law is a travesty - it violates the First Amendment 52 34.44%
Politicians should have carte blanche to say what is a legitimate form of photography 2 1.32%
Why does the gov't. get to photograph us with impunity while outlawing other forms of photography? 37 24.50%
Photographers have no right to photograph children even in public 2 1.32%
This law is okay but news photographers should have a special exemption 1 0.66%
It's high time that politicians put photographers in their place 4 2.65%
Politicians have no legitimate authority to decide what photography "serves no legitimate purpose" 54 35.76%
Politicians can do whatever they want once they are in office 4 2.65%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 151. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

California Senate Bill 606: No more photographing children W/O written permission
Old 08-14-2013   #1
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
 
noisycheese is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,279
Question California Senate Bill 606: No more photographing children W/O written permission

At the risk of starting a bloodbath, I am going to post the following article which was posted @ Peta Pixel. If passed and signed into law, California Senate Bill 606 will outlaw photographing children without the prior written consent of the parents or guardians.

Please cast your vote(s) for whichever option(s) in this multiple choice poll most closely matches your worldview on California Senate Bill 606.

And please try to be nice [AKA civil] to your fellow forum members in the discussions that will inevitably ensue.

Quote:
Hollywood Actresses Speak Out In Favor of Anti-Paparazzi Child Protection Law

David Becker · Aug 14, 2013


Actresses Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner testified before the California Legislature on Tuesday in support of an anti-paparazzi bill that would ban taking pictures of children without their parents’ written consent.

According to NBC, both actresses said their children had been repeatedly traumatized by herds of photographers looking for gossip fodder:

“I don’t want a gang of shouting, arguing, lawbreaking photographers who camp out everywhere we are all day, every day, to continue traumatizing my kids,” testified Garner, who has three children with husband and actor Ben Affleck. “They have a bounty on their heads every day.”

According to the Sacramento Bee, Berry said she has considered moving to France to protect her 5-year-old daughter, Nahla, from the press.

“They are allowed to be so close to her that they can shout obscenities to me and ask her questions that are inappropriate for a 5-year-old to have to answer,” testified Berry, explaining that her daughter is afraid to go to preschool because of the paparazzi horde.

California Senate Bill 606 would expand the state’s definition of “harassment” to include photographing, following or lying in wait for a child without the written consent of a parent or guardian — provided such behavior “seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and … serves no legitimate purpose.”

The bill, which passed the state Senate unanimously and is now headed for a vote in the Assembly, threatens non-abiding paparazzi with fines of up to $30,000 and a year in prison.

Representatives for the Motion Picture Association of America, the California Newspaper Publishers Association and other groups have opposed the bill, saying it could hinder news-gathering and other legitimate activities.
Link: http://petapixel.com/2013/08/14/papa...=Yahoo%21+Mail
__________________
The Leica M passion: From the inside it's hard to explain; from the outside it's hard to understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #2
35mmdelux
#Represent
 
35mmdelux's Avatar
 
35mmdelux is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,227
If passed and signed into law, California Senate Bill 606 will outlaw photographing children without the prior written consent of the parents or guardians.

I'm good with this in principle to protect children; however the law needs to better vetted to avoid a blanket censure and violation of 1st Amendment rights.
__________________
M-E │ 21 asph │ 35 asph │ 75 asph
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #3
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,686
Fascinating. In NYC you can secretly photograph anyone even inside their
homes (through windows).
In California you can't even photograph children out on the street.
Must be different countries, or maybe live under different Constitutions.
Hey, wait . . . did California ever actually sign the Constitution ?
__________________
Dave

  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #4
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
If passed next you will not be allowed to look at children without permission.
Know why? Because this sort of stupidity knows no end and is never satisfied.
The more something is forbiden the worse things become for those that these types of laws are intended to protect.
It is a fools folly.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #5
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 42
Posts: 3,904
It's not the fault of the politicians. It's the people of the United States of America. If the voting constituency lets the politicians run over their rights, then the constituency has been complicit through non-action.
We still have the power, as voters, to say what goes in this country.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #6
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
 
noisycheese is offline
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
If passed next you will not be allowed to look at children without permission.
Know why? Because this sort of stupidity knows no end and is never satisfied.
The more something is forbiden the worse things become for those that these types of laws are intended to protect.
It is a fools folly.
What he said. And what William Pitt the younger said:
Quote:
Necessity is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
__________________
The Leica M passion: From the inside it's hard to explain; from the outside it's hard to understand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #7
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,132
soon, all the celebrities with kids will move to california...no more paparazzi...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #8
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35mmdelux View Post
If passed and signed into law, California Senate Bill 606 will outlaw photographing children without the prior written consent of the parents or guardians.

I'm good with this in principle to protect children; however the law needs to better vetted to avoid a blanket censure and violation of 1st Amendment rights.
What are you protecting children from, I am just curious?
Let's say I spotted a child in a park and viciously took picture of him.
What is next? What is that dangerous to this child things that one CAN do with this photograph?
God damn ridiculous...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #9
rscheffler
Registered User
 
rscheffler is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 483
Maybe if people would stop reading the gossip publications the market for this kind of celebrity photography would diminish?

While the actions of some photographers, as cited in the testimony, are questionable, they're competing in a market demanding such images, thanks to the public's lust for such details. And to a degree, the celebrities need this market to exist. Just that it's difficult for them to control how far reaching the consequences of people's desires to know the intimacies of their lives will be. A price of fame?

While the proposal includes definitions as to what defines 'harassment' you know it will be twisted and abused. Some will misinterpret it to mean any and all photography of children without permission is banned. Definitely a bad idea to leave it up to law enforcement to determine what legitimate purposes are.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #10
YYV_146
Registered User
 
YYV_146's Avatar
 
YYV_146 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 32
Posts: 1,297
Why don't just pass a law banning the use of photo of children w/o permission for commercial applications of any kind?

This is about as stupid as banning motorcycles because they tend to run people over.
__________________
Victor is too lazy for DSLRs

Sony A7rII Kolari mod

Noctilux ASPH, 35lux FLE, 50 APO ASPH, 75 APO cron, 21lux, Sony/Minolta 135mm STF

500px
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #11
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
It's not the fault of the politicians. It's the people of the United States of America. If the voting constituency lets the politicians run over their rights, then the constituency has been complicit through non-action.
We still have the power, as voters, to say what goes in this country.

Phil Forrest
Its not just that people let politicians get away with it; often the people DEMAND that their elected officials do so!
  Reply With Quote

Still waiting
Old 08-14-2013   #12
randolph45
Registered User
 
randolph45's Avatar
 
randolph45 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sacramento Calif
Posts: 1,094
Still waiting

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleo View Post
Fascinating. In NYC you can secretly photograph anyone even inside their
homes (through windows).
In California you can't even photograph children out on the street.
Must be different countries, or maybe live under different Constitutions.
Hey, wait . . . did California ever actually sign the Constitution ?
The Pony Express hasn't delivered our copy of the Constitution yet
__________________
I finally realized why my photographs are so bad! It's not the equipment
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #13
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto View Post
Its not just that people let politicians get away with it; often the people DEMAND that their elected officials do so!
This is true. A lot of people are going to think this is a great law.

We have to keep in mind that most people are incredibly stupid.
I am not being mean to say that. It's merely a fact that I (we) have to live with.

EDIT: not picking on our Californian buddies. Here in Massachusetts we have some of the most educated and well-informed stupid people in the country
__________________
Dave

  Reply With Quote

Grandpa Arrested
Old 08-14-2013   #14
randolph45
Registered User
 
randolph45's Avatar
 
randolph45 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sacramento Calif
Posts: 1,094
Grandpa Arrested

Grandpa will be arrested for taking pictures of his Grand-kids because his Son or Daughter didn't give permission first
__________________
I finally realized why my photographs are so bad! It's not the equipment
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #15
troym
Registered User
 
troym is online now
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 183
Don't rely on news articles to give complete and accurate descriptions of legal issues. Whether or not the proposal is a good idea, you should read the bill yourself. Here is the key definition:
Quote:
"Harasses” means knowing and willful conduct directed at a specific child or ward that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and that serves no legitimate purpose, including, but not limited to, that conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording of the child’s or ward’s image or voice, or both, without the written consent of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward, by following the child’s or ward’s activities or by lying in wait. The conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable child to suffer substantial emotional distress, and actually cause the victim to suffer substantial emotional distress.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #16
Frontman
Registered User
 
Frontman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: 東京日本
Posts: 1,684
Don't rely on news articles to give complete and accurate descriptions of legal issues. Whether or not the proposal is a good idea, you should read the bill yourself. Here is the key definition:
Quote:

"Harasses” means knowing and willful conduct directed at a specific child or ward that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and that serves no legitimate purpose, including, but not limited to, that conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording of the child’s or ward’s image or voice, or both, without the written consent of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward, by following the child’s or ward’s activities or by lying in wait. The conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable child to suffer substantial emotional distress, and actually cause the victim to suffer substantial emotional distress."

The problem is that there is no specific definition for "seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes" nor is the term "no legitimate purpose" very specific. And exactly how does one measure "substantial emotional distress"? Children suffer "substantial emotional distress" if the ice cream truck fails to stop when they wave; should the ice cream man be charged for causing a child emotional distress if he fails to stop? I suffered substantial emotional distress when I was a child whenever Santa didn't bring the gift I wanted, should my parents have been charged with a crime?

It seems we are becoming a nation of weak and silly fools.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #17
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,641
I've complied. I had the children move out of the frame so I could legally take this picture in Long Beach:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5467/...d0b828e0d1.jpg
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #18
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,547
While I accept that children are a very tricky area for photographers this is crazy.

What a strange society we're becoming ... we over think everything!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #19
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,013
Celebrities should not be allowed in public. They cause more damage to our culture than just about anyone else I can think of. Celebrities are more than willing to let public adoration pump up their egos and pay checks. So I say they d**n well deserve the papparazi. Oops... sorry... late night... rant shields are down!
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X-H1; X-Pro1; XF10; Polaroid 250 (waiting for an 'art' project)

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2013   #20
j j
Registered User
 
j j is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 792
Petapixel knows how to push the moral panic buttons. What part of your photography needs to “seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and … serves no legitimate purpose.” ?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #21
Snapper_uk
Registered User
 
Snapper_uk's Avatar
 
Snapper_uk is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East Sussex, UK
Posts: 202
Hmmm. How many people ranting against this here are actually parents? Or parents of children that are continually followed by paps?

California Senate Bill 606 would expand the state’s definition of “harassment” to include photographing, following or lying in wait for a child without the written consent of a parent or guardian — provided such behavior “seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and … serves no legitimate purpose.”

So someone with a camera (I hate to use the word 'photographer' here) has the right to do the above? Another example of the arrogance of camera users that think that anything is game in public.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #22
Snapper_uk
Registered User
 
Snapper_uk's Avatar
 
Snapper_uk is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East Sussex, UK
Posts: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers View Post
Celebrities should not be allowed in public. They cause more damage to our culture than just about anyone else I can think of. Celebrities are more than willing to let public adoration pump up their egos and pay checks. So I say they d**n well deserve the papparazi. Oops... sorry... late night... rant shields are down!
Ah, but who makes the celebrities? Who buys the magazines and papers the publishes paparazzi pictures? If people weren't so eager to gobble up celebrity culture, there would be no celebrities.

Don't blame their kids for that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #23
mugent
Registered User
 
mugent is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 473
In fairness, this is more of an anit-harrasment bill,rather than an anti-photographer bill. The problem is, as with most laws, interpretation.

I can't help thinking that celebrities who have been affected by invasive photographers would be better served with some kind of injunction against the publishing newspapers, if there is no market for the photos, then the paps won't bother.

I think being surrounded by photographers when you take your kids to school *is* harassment, and there are already laws in place to deal with that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #24
Rick Waldroup
Registered User
 
Rick Waldroup's Avatar
 
Rick Waldroup is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 975
Would this ridiculous law stop street photographers from taking wonderful shots like this one? Even though this was not shot in the U.S., this great photo by one of our members, Clayne, captures the sheer joy of kids, acting, well, like kids.....

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...photoid=213628
__________________
Rick Waldroup Photography
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #25
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapper_uk View Post
Hmmm. How many people ranting against this here are actually parents? Or parents of children that are continually followed by paps?

California Senate Bill 606 would expand the state’s definition of “harassment” to include photographing, following or lying in wait for a child without the written consent of a parent or guardian — provided such behavior “seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and … serves no legitimate purpose.”

So someone with a camera (I hate to use the word 'photographer' here) has the right to do the above? Another example of the arrogance of camera users that think that anything is game in public.

Anything IS game in public, that's what law says. And I hope it will...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Waldroup View Post
Would this ridiculous law stop street photographers from taking wonderful shots like this one? Even though this was not shot in the U.S., this great photo by one of our members, Clayne, captures the sheer joy of kids, acting, well, like kids.....

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...photoid=213628
You bet it will.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #26
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,743
Many people already think there are laws like this in NYC. Many people think it is illegal to photograph anyone without their consent. It seems that in NYC, people come from all different countries and then think the laws from the country they came from are the same as in the US.

I can see both sides in the 606 bill. It sucks for a parent to have to deal with some creep job using their kids image for nefarious purposes. However, it would suck to give overly protective parents any reason to get in a photographer's face. There are parents that go nuts simply because their kid was 100 feet away in the background of a photo.

I've always thought people were silly about photographing in the streets. They will go to a museum, read a magazine, or look at a picture book without making the connection that most of those images were made by a person in a public place not asking everyone for permission.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #27
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,397
This law would never have happened if paparazzi were generally well mannered or at least moderated their behaviour. Now everyone stands to lose.
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #28
Cold
Registered User
 
Cold is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 106
The spirit behind it isn't so bad, but the law itself is awful and realistically unenforceable.

Let's say you're a street photographer, not necessarily focusing on a child, but there's maybe 20-30 people in the scene you capture.

Some over-protective mom sees someone with a camera and goes into berserker mode, demanding you delete the photo because her child was in it. You explain you're shooting film, so you can't possibly delete it, and now you're facing criminal charges for violation of this law because berserker-mom, as a ward, feels harassed, and "art" is not a "legitimate" reason.

By the book, that photographer is guilty, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if his/her name ends up on some sort of child crimes list.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #29
j j
Registered User
 
j j is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Waldroup View Post
Would this ridiculous law stop street photographers from taking wonderful shots like this one? Even though this was not shot in the U.S., this great photo by one of our members, Clayne, captures the sheer joy of kids, acting, well, like kids.....

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...photoid=213628
It is not a law. Even if it became one it would not stop photos such as that one by Clayne: the subjects do not appear harassed and in any case they are not in California.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #30
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold View Post

Some over-protective mom sees someone with a camera and goes into berserker mode, demanding you delete the photo because her child was in it. You explain you're shooting film, so you can't possibly delete it, and now you're facing criminal charges for violation of this law because berserker-mom, as a ward, feels harassed, and "art" is not a "legitimate" reason.

By the book, that photographer is guilty, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if his/her name ends up on some sort of child crimes list.
Yes, this is certainly one of the cons of the bill.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #31
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,755
Good part of adults qualify as a children. Now their images are protected by the law. Great!
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #32
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,577
I lived in Southern California.
Lord help you if there were kids somewhere on the beach, miles away..
Everybody was concerned. The fact i was doing a scene or fashion shoot,
made no difference.The kids were not even in my shots..Too far away, plus
they were dots. Pedophiles are usually your OWN family.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #33
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 930
I still fail to see what possible harm can one do to a child by taking picture of him in public place. Can anyone enlighten me?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #34
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
I still fail to see what possible harm can one do to a child by taking picture of him in public place. Can anyone enlighten me?
Photoshopping your kid's head onto another kid's body. Sites with pictures of kids by people with no relation to the kids who are not in it for the art, etc. The celebrities probably just want their kids to have a semi-normal life without being harrassed or ending up in some rumor magazine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #35
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
 
Lauffray's Avatar
 
Lauffray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montreal
Age: 31
Posts: 1,434
Luckily we don't have that many more serious problems to deal with these days, what's a bored politician to do ? got to make a living somehow
__________________

WebsiteFlickrInsta
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #36
Ronald M
Registered User
 
Ronald M is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,486
Supply and demand determine price.

Celebrities supposedly dislike the paparazzi, so they run, duck and hide. The way to stop it is to stand still, smile, and let them fill the cards or run out of film. How much is the pic worth. Not much when 20 people have them all. Then they give up.

Same with your kids. Provide some photo ops.

Now if they invade privacy with cameras on drones or the like, jail time as far as I am concerned for the photog and magazine that publishes them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #37
Spanik
Registered User
 
Spanik is offline
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,425
Quote:
Good part of adults qualify as a children. Now their images are protected by the law. Great!
Yep, you now cannot take a picture of me without written consent of my mom.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #38
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
 
Lauffray's Avatar
 
Lauffray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montreal
Age: 31
Posts: 1,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus View Post
It's a real pity that "civilised" countries don't require 51% of all voters to back any new statute.
I heard from a Swiss friend that every "major" law that politicians want to pass also has to pass a local popular vote, or a type of referendum. I guess that makes Switzerland a democracy in the more literal sense, but it must get tiring to vote on absolutely everything, I mean surely there are issues where I wouldn't feel interested or qualified to give my opinion
__________________

WebsiteFlickrInsta
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #39
Gumby
Registered User
 
Gumby is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,554
This bill is no good. No good at all. It is written to narrowly. In addition to photographers it should be expanded to include caricature artists, mimes, clowns, and clergy!
__________________
With kind regards, ed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #40
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,581
there is no expectation of privacy in public.

this can be dealt with under existing harassment laws.

btw people aren't dumb, and Americans aren't dumb either, as a whole. but Americans, culturally, are short sighted and sold the idea that common sense, rather than technocratic approaches, is the solution to most problems. which is why you can have a law like this, which seems like "common sense", but which simply expands the power of the state while the issue it proposes to address is already covered in other areas.

and I have zero issue with celebrities whining and moaning about the paparazzi following them. clearly, public figures are the only ones targeted by them. however, letting them complain is different than bending the law to them when it places an unnecessary burden on others to comply to nebulous laws.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:29.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.