Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I may have missed the beginning of this thread, so forgive me...but the following should be food for thought for photographers... Despite all the talk in the U.S. of the unfettered freedom of the press, there is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution about a public right to know, or the right of journalists to stick their noses into any place in particular. What there is is a bar against Congress - and thus, through the 13th Amendment, the States, making any law abridging the freedom of the press to PUBLISH what it gets a hold of. Which, I believe means, just as photographers can be barred from courtrooms, and at various times in our history have been routinely, so they could be barred from photographing in other situations. From publishing the photo once it's taken? That's another matter... B. D. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Mark > Rabiner > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 7:34 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Photo Vultures (didtoday,getalife) [no Leica] > > > Bryan Cldwell wrote: > > >>Not in the US. That's called prior restraint, and is > unconstitutional > > here. << > ><Snip> . There are other areas where prior > > restraint on publication has been upheld by the courts and > areas where > > constitutional scholars suspect that it might be upheld. > > > > Usually found unconstitutional? Yes. Per se unconstitutional? No. > > Bryan > > From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net> > ><Snip> > > > At 10:04 PM 9/21/99 -0500, Paul Schiemer wrote: > > > >See, that's where I believe you missed the point I was > trying to make: > > > >It's not the taking of the photo but the use of it afterward. > ><Snip> > > I'm glad we have lawyers here! :) This stuff impresses the > heck out of me! > Mark Rabiner >