Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
There is a huge difference between being required or forced to pose for a photo and having one's photograph taken in public.
+100
There is a huge difference between being required or forced to pose for a photo and having one's photograph taken in public.
If a restaurant gave notice of no pictures/videos/recordings a private action could result, but you would have to show damages. A restaurant open to the public even though private, an expectation of privacy does not exist.As far as your first paragraph goes I agree if it is the government taking pictures of the general public. But since we are talking about me taking a picture of you the constitution does not protect you from me or me from you etc. You are correct the government was/is watering down our 4A rights we fully agree there as well.
Second paragraph the 4A does not apply to your interactions with me only our interactions with the government.
I did say in public, but I also said in a public place in an earlier post. Public place was a bad choice of words as you point out a public bathroom is a public place. I still maintain that if one is in public such as walking down the sidewalk, at a park, attending a sporting event etc anyone can take a photo/video. How could it work any other way?
Now in a restaurant would be an entirely different matter assuming the restaurant is not owned by the government that would depend on the owners policy.
Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
Solus the constitution does not require a reason to exercise a right. Recording does not steal souls as some savages once believed, we are not savages, and should rejoice at freedom. The attacker was a public employee in a public place, he has no more expectation of privacy than the common citizen WHO IS recorded by government. I have no fear of being recorded by citizens, I do object to government eaves dropping. This incident is nothing more than a man exercising his rights not harming, or even coming close to threatening anyone.
There are times we agree, and times such as this not. But I am strongly in favor of rights being exercised. And I have no right to demand why.
Originally Posted by color of law View Post
Furthest from the truth. There are two cases in the federal courts right now over being forced to have their picture taken, one civil and one criminal. Both are Amish cases. Many Old Order Amish believe being ordered by law to have their pictures taken violates their religious rights under the first amendment. Also see 42 USC 2000bb.
The one civil case is an Amish man having to have a photo ID to purchase a firearm. The other is a criminal case over a mug shot prior to being convicted of anything.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"
So, your belief is misplaced.
Originally Posted by NavyLCDR
There is a huge difference between being required or forced to pose for a photo and having one's photograph taken in public.
Your point????+100
Your point????
Before answering please pay attention to the subject matter I addressed.
So, you are saying that your reading comprehension is not your strong suit?Your entire post is off topic and possibly an attempt to create a false equivalency, being Amish and objecting to being forced to have your photo taken has absolutely nothing to do with video taping in a public setting.
I responded specifically to walkingWolf's above statement. He was calling Amish savages. I don't think he thought through his statement.WalkingWolf: Recording does not steal souls as some savages once believed, we are not savages....
I am not so sure you, me have no expectation of privacy in a public place. Right off the top of my head I can think of the urinal, the phone booth/stall, the quiet corner of a restaurant, the far corner of the parking lot, etc.
There are two types of expectations of privacy:
Subjective expectation of privacy – a certain individual's opinion that a certain location or situation is private; varies greatly from person to person
Objective, legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy – An expectation of privacy generally recognized by society
Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are a person's residence or hotel room and public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector in order to ensure privacy, such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses, or a phone booth.
If a restaurant gave notice of no pictures/videos/recordings a private action could result, but you would have to show damages. A restaurant open to the public even though private, an expectation of privacy does not exist.
Between you and the government, you have to show some expectation of privacy was expected. Phone call in a telephone booth.
So, you are saying that your reading comprehension is not your strong suit?
I responded specifically to walkingWolf's above statement. He was calling Amish savages. I don't think he thought through his statement.
Got it??????
So, you are saying that your reading comprehension is not your strong suit?
So do you want to have a discussion or do you want to do personal attacks? I can do either one just let me know.
He was calling Amish savages.
As far as your first paragraph goes I agree if it is the government taking pictures of the general public. But since we are talking about me taking a picture of you the constitution does not protect you from me or me from you etc. You are correct the government was/is watering down our 4A rights we fully agree there as well.
Second paragraph the 4A does not apply to your interactions with me only our interactions with the government.
I did say in public, but I also said in a public place in an earlier post. Public place was a bad choice of words as you point out a public bathroom is a public place. I still maintain that if one is in public such as walking down the sidewalk, at a park, attending a sporting event etc anyone can take a photo/video. How could it work any other way?
Now in a restaurant would be an entirely different matter assuming the restaurant is not owned by the government that would depend on the owners policy.
That's correct.So I read/know/have been told that the restaurants policy is no pictures/videos/recordings yet I have no expectation of privacy, did I get that right?
Specious and mutually exclusive.So between me and the government I have to show I have an expectation of the right to remain silent before I can be silent, I have to show an expectation of religious freedom to be religious, I have to show the government I have an expectation of not being required to house troops before I can refuse to house troops. did I also get that right?
I'll just address a certain point. This is not to contradict or argue--just expand.
This is a discussion after all.
Also, many of the rights in the Bill of Rights are natural rights or derive directly from a natural right--meaning they would apply whether government is involved or not.
The difference of course is the Constitution supposedly protects us from the government.
I suspect--only suspect--the dichotomy between the Bill of Rights and government or private action is simply another government rationalization.
Agreed
I do agree in principle with your question, "How could it work any other way?" That is to say, I am at a loss, too. (But, give me time. I might figure out something. )
I responded specifically to walkingWolf's above statement. He was calling Amish savages.
So, you are saying that your reading comprehension is not your strong suit?
If you read the entire thread as to what I was addressing you would not have said what you said.Walking Wolf never mentioned the Amish; you inserted them into the discussion where it doesn't apply, because the Amish don't believe that recording "steals their souls". They have entirely different reasons for objecting to being photographed ("graven images", and pridefulness) that have nothing at all to do with souls being stolen by cameras.
Someone said something relevant here, now what was it? Oh, yeah, it was this:
There was no purpose to this video except to generate chaos...proven by the video immediately ceasing when the initial encounter didn't generate the reaction the videographer was seeking ~ severe reaction since the supervisour, in both encounters, failed to react and in the first segue way the video immediately ceased.
It's called video editing.
Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0
Do bus drivers wear badges?