| |
  
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
NYC tried to impose something even worse
Bloomberg's goons actually tired to pass a law requiring ANYBODY who wanted to take pictures in public to obtain a permit.
For every one's safety of course, nothing to do with incidents where pictures taken by the public showed police making unlawful arrests.
In some situations a camera is a better weapon than a gun.
Celebrities have wealth, connections and they need special rights too?
I think it's a good way to take away people's cameras
for no good reason. You don't get famous to get left alone.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
well...
any other opinions on this one?
I'm reconsidering my position.
I've been thinking. Sorry it's taking so long. I don't disagree with stuki, but, I don't see paparazzi and stationary cameras as the same thing.
I'm thinking. Thank you for the thought proviking post!!!!!
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
you got it...
thoughts being provoked is what the dailypaul is for...
By using the name "paparazzi" one stigmatizes reporters
that happen to be attempting to gather info. on famous people or elected officials. Can't film police...can't film governmental buildings...can't even film your children taking a bath !!!
It all starts by placing a name slang name on it. Marijuana vs Cannabis is a perfect example. If you take pictures of famous people...your a paparazzi...if you take pictures of the ghetto...your a photographer.
Discover Costa Rica
Discover Costa Rica
The paparazzi who harrassed Arnold
were found guilty of false imprisonment. Celebrities should do that more. Paparazzi really do get creepy, but bringing the government into it is just about favoring people with power (celebrities).
Defend Liberty!
rights
Seems a simple rights issue. The rights of one group end when they infringe on another's. Paparazzi = harassment. Dunno if we need a new law, just enforcement of civil law.
Paparazzi taking pictures of
Paparazzi taking pictures of someone is no different than government photo boxes taking pictures of someone supposedly "speeding", or whatever. The sole difference is, the people generally taken pictures of by paparazzi, tend to be bigger campaign donor, at least in CA, than the average schlub in a fast car.
The harassment is entirely orthogonal to whether the harasser has a camera or not. Pushing potential costs further downstream to news reporting organizations, just gives trial lawyers deeper pockets to latch on to, and puts a crimp on news co's willingness to air stuff like the ACORN tapes without... tah-dah, paying some lawyer for counsel.
I don't agree
Not that I'm for more laws, but paperazzi is not government. A camera catching you speeding is much different than a peson or people stalking you for a picture to sell.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
I still don't see why it
I still don't see why it should be OK for the government to take pictures of you without your explicit consent, but not for someone not from the government to do the same thing.
The "bad" things that paparazzi do, are the physical mobbing, which is already banned. As long as there's not a complete ban on anyone taking any picture of anyone not explicitly consenting anywhere anytime, which would pretty much dry up all photojournalism, why asymmetrically protect so called celebrities? Think anyone asked the Vietnamese General or whatnot who shot that VC guy in the head back when for his consent to be taken picture of?
As long as you're in public, and cameras aren't banned in public, the fact that some people find you more interesting to point their cameras at than some other random guy is no business of government nor the legal system.
I don't think of it as a free speach issue
I think of it as a privacy issue and I believe privacy should be protected, so Arnold is doing the right thing.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Privacy in Public?
As soon as you step out the door onto a public street you have no right to expect privacy.
As has been said, there are plenty of other laws to use against "photographers". Blocking traffic comes to mind as a good one. Maybe stalking laws, child endangerment, or ???
Privacy in Public?
As soon as you step out the door onto a public street you have no right to expect privacy.
As has been said, there are plenty of other laws to use against "photographers". Blocking traffic comes to mind as a good one. Maybe stalking laws, child endangerment, or ???
It's one more way of
It's one more way of asymmetrically decreasing the power and rights of individuals vs. the government, and other the government deems worthy. And, to make sure yet another set of potential transactions have to pay tribute to the lawyers, of course. Now, news outlets will have to worry about whether those ACORN tapes were obtained "legally" or not. Blocking people from walking their kids to school is already false imprisonment or assault. Whether the blocker has a camera or not, is utterly immaterial.
Also, fat chance this law can be used to prevent government stooges from taking pictures of you, regardless of how famous you are amongst people who matter, like your family.
As pretty much always, it's a law. Ergo, it's a bad law.