Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right

In message

Why not?

Is pornography Illegal?

Well, not in a democracy.

 

Just shows how stupid US law is.

 

In message

No it is the only relevant law. What is done in foreign countries like
the USA is irrelevant.

No... It is any country which has a first amendment. Many do

 

Taking sexual photos of a minor is child pornography by the letter and
the indent of the law. What did she expect?

jue

 

and firing the GM's CEO, to the tune of 20 mil in 'retirement'
benefits.. don't forget that part

 

To the politicians _anything_ is acceptable if it's "for the children", even
throwing some kid in jail for showing some other kid something that the
other kid apparently doesn't want to see.

 

Could you sight a reference for that? Let's face it, in the
US everything is a right unless it is otherwise restricted.

Let's see, I don't recall any specific reference in law that
gives me a right to blink my right eye in private. So then if I need
a constitutional authority to take a photography, then I guess I need
one to blink my eye.

Think of it like this, my right to swing my arm, ends at your
nose.

Also photography may be a form of expression, but it is also a
method or recording information etc.

 

-:On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam <>
-:wrote:

-:The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
-:something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
-:Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
-:Constitutional rights.

dear invalid:

you actually should do research into the bill of rights,
and in the context in which it was written.
( very interesting ideas )
it does not grant anything.

it explicitly enumerates existing rights of free men.
It recognizes that they exist. It was created
because some of the founding fathers were afraid
that in the future there would be 'governors'
who would not understand this,
and who would take away these rights,
so they explicitly described some of them.

'the pursuit of happiness' recognizes that we are allowed
to do many things which are not explicitly allowed by law.
it is the other way around, we are allowed to do anything
which is not explicitly restricted by law.

think about the difference.
do you need a law passed to allow you to go to a football game?
has any such law been passed?

is there a law that allows you to shop for food?

do you want to live in a place where you can not do something
until the legislature passes a law that allows you to do it?

 

it rarely fails.

perhaps they could be recovered but that is not relevant. one moment
he had a card full of photos and the next moment he did not. that's
destruction.

 

this took place in the usa, so the only relevant laws in this case are
those of the usa. period.

had it taken place in london then the laws of the uk would be relevant.
but it didn't take place there so they're not.

 

it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.

the fact that someone might be able to recover it, possibly with a lot
of time and expense, does not mean there's no destruction. and most
people aren't aware of the fact they can recover an erased card or have
any idea where to find the tools to do it. it's clearly destruction of
property.

if someone smashes your car with a baseball bat and you have it
repaired, does that mean he didn't destroy your property?

 

-:In article <>, Ron Hunter
-:
-:
-:it's almost always the case that reformat erases the card.

not so.
the data clusters are released but not damaged.
the directory entries are changed, but not deleted or damaged.

anyone can recover it.
it is not hard.
it is not expensive.

-:
-:the fact that someone might be able to recover it, possibly with a lot
-f time and expense, does not mean there's no destruction. and most
-eople aren't aware of the fact they can recover an erased card or have
-:any idea where to find the tools to do it.

google, people. people, google.

problem solved.

 

to the user, the files are gone. erased. history. no more photos.

no, not 'anyone.' most people are completely unaware that deleted data
can be recovered. plus, it requires time and expense that would not
otherwise be needed.

 

As I understand the USA, rights are granted by God. The
Constitution limits the power of Federal government to
infringe those rights.

That said, I doubt photography is covered by the 1
ammendment to the US Constitution.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


message
The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A
"right" is
something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from
the
Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment
with our
Constitutional rights.

There is no extant law that gives you a right to take
photographs. We
depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of
photographs to
allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference
with a
police officer.

Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of
free
press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph.
There
are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech
doesn't apply.

 

Actually no. A (standard) format only rewrites the administrative file
system information like e.g. free/used sector list, root directory, etc.
but it doesn't touch the data blocks at all. Just imagine how long a
format would take if the format would actually rewrite some 64GB of
data.

jue

 

Not quite. There's a big difference between new photography which is
press and everything else. Shoot for a paper or freelance and able to
prove it, much different that guy on the street.

Now, you can shoot what you want unless there are laws against it, but
what you do with an image may get you in a lot of hot water, invasion
of privacy, libel, all that.

I'd argue this article is a bit of a misnomer.

There used to be a good book , Photography and the Law. Don't know if
its updated or still in print, worth a read.

There is a reason ethics and law are taught in journalism schools. Its
not absolute. But, there are always lots of people with way too much
power and egos that think they can break the law.

 

none of that matters to the typical user. one minute the photos are
there and moments later they're gone. that is the very definition of
erase. the images no longer show up in the camera or when put into a
card reader on a computer. they're *gone*.

the fact that someone with the appropriate skills, tools and time can
recover it is nice, but that only reinforces the fact that the card has
been erased.

 

Well, in many states it's legal for minors of the same age to *have
sex* with each other (or at least it's not considered statutory rape.)
Perhaps she expected taking the pics to be considered a lesser act.

I can certainly see not wanting to create a loophope for real child
pornographers - getting the kids to take the pics - but I don't think
that such actions initiated independently of the influence of an adult
should result in criminal charges. (Except, of course, for any adult
who then exploits said pics after the fact.)

 

It is almost never the case that delete all or reformat completely
removes all stored information. It may remove the structures that say
what files are where but that is about all. Any of the various well
advertised image rescue programs can get it back.

Only if the user is terminally stupid and ignorant. That is why I said
the policeman who claimed to have deleted all the images for security
reasons had failed. Delete all just hides the file entries and marks the
media unused. It is trivial to retrieve all the data with basic tools.
Apart from one letter of the filename everything else survives. One well
known high street brand sometimes cocks up on digital image media, but
any of the others will work OK.

Specific delete of specific images and then overwriting the freed media
with new files is needed for terminal and permanent data loss.

OK people who have absolutely no understanding of digital cameras or
computers cannot. But compared with a film camera where taking the film
out and pulling the tab in bright sunlight there is no contest.

From a press photographers point of view some jerk deleting all the
images is neither here nor there. Yes you could file a complaint about
it, but provided you take the media out of the camera immediately you
can easily get back everything that has been lost.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

that's technically true, but until the person obtains the tools and
takes the time to run the software, the images are *gone*.

why don't you go to a camera store and erase people's memory cards and
then explain to them that you aren't really erasing anything and that
it's trivial to get the images back. see how well that works out.

oh please. the vast majority of users are neither terminally stupid
nor ignorant and they are probably not aware of how to recover a
deleted card. and even if they are aware, they are denied use of the
card until they have an opportunity to get the tools and recover it.
what if they're on vacation and without a computer or network access?