Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest
From: Andrew Schroter <schroter@optonline.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:59:01 -0700
References: <NABBLIJOIFAICKBIEPJJIEENKEAA.darkroom@ix.netcom.com> <002e01c0fab4$279976c0$60088ed1@hppav> <3B329EAF.5A693437@earthlink.net> <OE62tYdVzDpubxcbz3700000373@hotmail.com> <3B3352A4.B61F02C8@earthlink.net> <OE16zGZuNY1SWoBDyse000006a6@hotmail.com>

Perhaps, before venturing out on such photo expeditions it is best to be
armed with copies of the appropriate legal opinions that buttress your
position.  If the rent-a-cops don't heed, the Blue badges will certainly
have to heed, lest they be hit with false arrest charges.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest


> S Dimitrov writes:
>
> > Well, I made it up.
>
> How does this conduct differ from that of a rent-a-cop harassing a
photographer?
>
> > The contractors, on the other hand, clearly
> > had "other intents," and therefore is not
> > protected under the 1st amend as such.
>
> Clear or not, it is not your business to police them.
>
> > The contractors, on the other hand, clearly had
> > "other intents," and therefore is not protected
> > under the 1st amend as such.
>
> Were you acting as their legal counsel?
>
> > Now, what those intents where, only a formal
> > investigation with a  proscribed mechanism
> > under the law could of deduced it.
>
> This statement conflicts with your previous statement, in which you said
that
> the contracts "clearly had 'other intents.'"  How can you know that they
had
> other intents if only a formal investigation would be capable of
uncovering
> them?
>
> > In other words, either a police investigation
> > or a civil lawsuit.
>
> Then perhaps it is best left up to the police and the lawyers, no?
>
> > Considering how volatile the environment is,
> > with regard to lawsuits, what where the odds
> > in that up-scale neighborhood that some member
> > of the public would of seen the videotaping as
> > intrusive, and worthy of their time to address it?
>
> I'd guess at least ten thousand to one.  No member of the public would
really
> care.
>
> It sounds like you have quite a double standard.  This does not seem
conducive
> to maintaining First-Amendment freedoms or the freedom to photograph
generally.

Replies: Reply from "Barney Quinn, Jr." <barney@ncep.noaa.gov> (Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest)
Reply from Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com> ([Leica] Re: Home depot and the rest)
Reply from Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> ([Leica] Hats!)
Reply from S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest)
Reply from Ted Grant <tedgrant@home.com> (Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest)
In reply to: Message from "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> (RE: [Leica] Home depot and the rest)
Message from "Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net> (Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest)
Message from S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest)
Message from "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> (Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest)
Message from S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest)
Message from "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> (Re: [Leica] Home depot and the rest)