Photography Banned in Downtown Silver Spring, Maryland

Be afraid America.

 

This week the supreme court ruled against a student's free speech and in favor of the school's right to censure because the student's message was seen to be "pro drug use", which is just a way of saying unpopular and/or contrary to the official State policy on the subject.

 

We all know that the true and ONLY measure of free speech is its protection of a citizen's right to say PUBLICLY the most unpopular of opinions. There are and can be NO exceptions, or free speech is no longer free.

 

The highly educated and obviously poisoned court, no longer understands this FUNDAMENTAL principle.

 

What then about the 2nd amendment?

 

Be very afraid! But stand firm.

 

C Painter

 

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility

of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom,

go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel,

nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;

May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget

that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

"This week the supreme court ruled against a student's free speech "

 

Bong Hits For Jesus!, there I said it! :-)

BTW - the fact that you are talking about a free speech case that went to the Supreme Court for a decision, and also that I can quote what his poster said word for word. Along with the fact that the kid is NOT locked up somewhere could be a good thing? No? :-)

The only time that I have had my free speech violated is when I made a call to our local dem congressman with and opinion that his "office" people did not agree with. I endured rude comments from them before they hung up on me, preventing me from expressing my opinion. That IS a violation of free speech!

you could have kept on talking. Just because you have an opinion doesn't obligate anyone to listen.

 

BTW I keep getting hit up by the GOP to contribute big bucks for the opportunity to share my views with President Bush. Not that he actually listens to anyone besides Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

"Just because you have an opinion doesn't obligate anyone to listen"

 

When my tax money is paying someones salary and a person is elected to represent everyone, I think you are wrong on this one. How about if I add that my Union wasted 25 million to support Dean during the last election, my opinion is useless? That is what free speech is all about...

Ellis, one last thought. How can you be so sure that my opinion did not mirror yours on that particular day? Because he is a liberal dem? He once voted in favor of a law to ban the burning of the American flag. SOME would argue that as a violation of free speech.

 

thanks 4 the feedback anyway! :-)

Samuel Adams... America's World Class Beer

 

My sort of bloke,and i can share a beer with him.The arse lickers should really read what he has to say....you know who you are.

 

Freedoms are very very hard fought,and easily lost. Have some principles.

If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

 

I was referring to this thought of Samual Adams.

 

To shake his hand would be a difining moment for me as he encapsulates my very thoughts.

It always starts with the loss of little freedoms........

It will be a 'hassle' for us. Evenso, my wife and I, and our two Border Collies, will, tomorrow,

07/04/07, be among the 'honorable and resolute' at 12N in the area adjoining "Downtown

Silver Spring."

 

Regards,

 

Johnny

I would appreciate suggestions about equipment...

 

[i am not a PJ...]

 

I have a Nikon D2X and no AF Primes... I have several AIS primes...

 

I have a Leica M-series camera and a variety of old and new 'primes.'

 

I have an LSM and a variety of old and new 'primes.'

 

Would you help? The 'event' is tomorrow.

 

B&W? Digital color?

 

Johnny

I see in the Gazette (www.gazette.net) that the Peterson Co. has "relaxed its policy".<p>

http://www.gazette.net/stories/070407/silvnew205155_32355.shtml

Speaking as a non US citizen, is it really a *constitutional* right to take photographs?

"The whole world is watching."

Nobody cares. Even the guy with all the letters after his name who gets frustrated and types badly doesn't really care. If he did, he'd be ponying up checks not frantic web postings. Get over it. It's a new fancy strip mall.

 

Do you guys ever really check these things out before going to war on the web?

>>> "The whole world is watching."

 

You're kidding, right? More like the tiny number of photographers here who feel their "rights"

have yet again been trampled under the thumb of the man. Everyone else shrugs...

Brad, like I said before: you don't care, so why do you keep posting?

Your personal philosophy is that the "rules" don't apply to you anyway. You have made it clear in your posts here in this thread that even if photography was legitimately prohibited that it wouldn't keep you from sneaking a photograph. So much for your respect of private property.

Brad : I refer to your above 6/28, 10:15 "Bingo" post.

>>> Brad, like I said before: you don't care, so why do you keep posting?

 

Because I have a POV. What's your reason? Seems you just enjoy letting others get you

wound up...

 

>>> So much for your respect of private property.

 

See my comment, above...

Hmm, I just went on google to get info about the 4th of July Parade in Huntington Beach,

thinking I might break my general rule of staying off the streets for the 4th, and go snap

some pics. I went to this parade about 20 years ago and it was not any different than

casually taking

your camera for a sunny day to a park. To most of us here, what could be more

wholesome? ...or if you wish- more American? But here's the very first bit of

info

I encountered

front

and center at the top of the

page on the website giving info for the parade:

 

<p><i>"Photography, videography and observation of CHG events, particularly non-

public re-enactments, by members of the general public (i.e., other than CHG members or

members of CHG-recognized re-enactment organizations in attendance at such events) or

the media is only permitted with the prior approval of the CHG Board of Directors. The

applicant must appear in person at a Board meeting (typically held the last Sunday of every

other month) and explain his reasons for wanting to photograph, film or observe a CHG

event or re-enactment, whether there will be any monetary gain associated with the

photographs or filming of the event (in which event the Board may require the making of a

donation of a portion of the profits or payment of an honorarium to CHG), whether the

applicant will be in an appropriate period uniform or contemporary civilian attire and the

applicant's willingness to sign a CHG waiver of liability and hold harmless agreement.

Absent such prior approval and compliance with all of the other requirements to be

followed, as listed above, anyone who appears at an event and attempts to photograph,

film or observe such event will politely asked to leave and if the individual refuses to do

so, the owner of the property or appropriate police authorities will be summoned and such

individuals will be escorted from the premises. Your cooperation with this policy will be

greatly appreciated and will avoid embarrassment to all concerned...</i><p>Even if Silver

Spring is not the battle to pick, at least my nose tells me

there's

a smell of skunk in the air regarding the right to photograph in situations that heretofore

had gone

unquestioned. Things just don't appear to be

moving in a

good direction in this arena.

"Your personal philosophy is that the "rules" don't apply to you anyway. You have made it clear in your posts here in this thread that even if photography was legitimately prohibited that it wouldn't keep you from sneaking a photograph. So much for your respect of private property."

 

Your a lawyer right? It is called civil disobedience's and seems to have worked in the past. But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer..

 

Here is another case you can work on in your free time...

 

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070703-061959-7090r

Ray, if you are shooting on public property, then there's no issue. Shoot away, CHG does not

have police powers. If you are on private property shooting the event, I suspect the property

owner can ask you to stop. And have you removed if you don't. Kind of like in your house,

store, etc.

 

Is the "CHG event" on private property?

The parade is held on public streets, yes. After looking at some pics of last year's parade

I'm not sure it looks worth the bother anyway, but that's beside the point. I don't believe

Cal Historical Group was involved

when I attended this Huntington Beach parade years ago. At the Martin Luther King Day

parade this year I was questioned by

a police officer as to whether or not I was "with the parade." I sort of shrugged and I think

the policeman wasn't that clear as to what he could or should enforce or not, and didn't

question me further. The Rose Parade this year, however, much more establishment and

organized by a higher power structure, was quite buttoned up as far as allowing people

to get into the staging area on the public steet without some kind of official pass. This in

spite of word over the phone to me by both police department and Parade officials that it

was open. Like you, I will just go and do photography where I can, where it's comfortable

and where there's less

hassle- plenty of places and opportunities, but I just don't like the direction much of this

seems to be headed. That is, a complete lack of understanding as to why someone would

want to take pictures unless it is officially sanctioned press or commercial or fits into the

mainstream

family or tourist viewpoint. People are wanting less and less outside observers dropping

by to check out what they are doing. If someone is outside their group, they are tending

to be more

suspicioius at first blush when a camera is involved. Yes, of course you can approach in

an outwardly affable manner

and

often

transcend all that, but why should this be necessary to the extent it is and the default be

that basic rights of

neutral observers are challenged? Which shall it be? Innocent until proven guilty, or the

other way around? It isn't only within the official power structure, it's

suspicion held by people in general. It seems to have increased over the years. I

understand the reasons for it, but I do wish people would step back and look a little

harder at the whole

picture.

<i>Aint I hard enough, aint I rough enough, aint I rich

enough? I'm not too blind to

seeeeeeeeeee...</i><p>

Looks like we're in Iraq for a good long time, no

matter who

gets elected, eh?!! Just keep me, myself and I out of harm's way and don't take my cam...

Happy Fourth

everyone! ;)