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

Discussion in 'Digital Point & Shoot Camera' started by Neil Jones, Mar 29, 2009.

  1. Neil Jones

    Chris H Guest

    In message
    Why not?
    Is pornography Illegal?
    Well, not in a democracy.
    Chris H, Mar 30, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Neil Jones

    Chris H Guest

    Chris H, Mar 30, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Neil Jones

    Chris H Guest

    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
    Chris H, Mar 30, 2009
  4. Taking sexual photos of a minor is child pornography by the letter and
    the indent of the law. What did she expect?

    Jürgen Exner, Mar 30, 2009
  5. Neil Jones

    Pboud Guest

    and firing the GM's CEO, to the tune of 20 mil in 'retirement'
    benefits.. don't forget that part
    Pboud, Mar 30, 2009
  6. Neil Jones

    J. Clarke Guest

    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.
    J. Clarke, Mar 30, 2009
  7. Neil Jones

    Guest Guest

    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

    Also photography may be a form of expression, but it is also a
    method or recording information etc.
    Guest, Mar 30, 2009
  8. Neil Jones

    Bob Guest

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

    -: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?
    Bob, Mar 30, 2009
  9. Neil Jones

    Guest Guest

    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
    Guest, Mar 30, 2009
  10. Neil Jones

    Guest Guest

    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.
    Guest, Mar 30, 2009
  11. Neil Jones

    Guest Guest

    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

    if someone smashes your car with a baseball bat and you have it
    repaired, does that mean he didn't destroy your property?
    Guest, Mar 30, 2009
  12. Neil Jones

    Bob Guest

    -: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
    -:eek:f 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.

    google, people. people, google.

    problem solved.
    Bob, Mar 30, 2009
  13. Neil Jones

    Guest Guest

    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.
    Guest, Mar 30, 2009
  14. 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

    The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A
    "right" is
    something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from
    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
    press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph.
    are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech
    doesn't apply.
    Stormin Mormon, Mar 31, 2009
  15. 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

    Jürgen Exner, Mar 31, 2009
  16. Neil Jones

    frank Guest

    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.
    frank, Mar 31, 2009
  17. Neil Jones

    Guest Guest

    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.
    Guest, Mar 31, 2009
  18. Neil Jones

    John A. Guest

    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.)
    John A., Mar 31, 2009
  19. Neil Jones

    Martin Brown Guest

    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.

    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Mar 31, 2009
  20. Neil Jones

    Guest Guest

    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?
    Guest, Mar 31, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.