rogerwb Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 <p>Photography … Its Now Illegal. - In Vermont, Bill H233 was introduced this week that states:<br />This bill proposes to make it illegal to take a photograph of a person without his or her consent, or to modify a photograph of a person without his or her consent, and to distribute it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 <p>Read up on it some more. It's not a serious bill and will not be taken up. Apparently Vermont has some system where anyone can submit a bill to their representative and the representative submits it as a bill. Doesn't mean it will be considered or discussed by the legislature.</p> <p>It's dead in the water before it even starts. Don't Panic</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 <p><a href="http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/04/proposed-vermont-bill-will-not-outlaw-photographing-people-without-their-permission-upd">This Pop Photo article claims the bill is dead</a>.</p> <p>That said, there should be penalties for legislators who write, sponsor, introduce or support unconstitutional laws. Something comparable to penalties in sports. For example, any legislator who proposes or supports an unconstitutional bill should be banned from proposing any other bill for at least a year.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 <p><<<<em>Photography … Its Now Illegal</em>>>></p> <p>False headlines like this ought to be banned along with proposing unconstitutional laws. Even if the bill in question were to be passed, which it obviously won't be, the headline would still be false. </p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_mareno1 Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 <p>"any legislator who proposes or supports an unconstitutional bill should be banned from proposing any other bill for at least a year".</p> <p>Well, there goes the Republicans, lock, stock and barrel.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 <p>Steve: That's some pretty good irony there, using that particular metaphor.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_stobbs3 Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 So the Supreme Court might have to rule on every bill to determine its constitutionality? And every legislator would have to wait how many years to see if they could file another bill? Might be a plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 <p>The plan to immobilize government has really worked well in the past:</p> <blockquote> <p>During the reign of Władysław IV (1632–48), the liberum veto had evolved. This policy of parliamentary procedure was based on the assumption of the political equality of every "gentleman", with the corollary that <strong><em>unanimous consent was needed for all measures</em></strong>. A single member of parliament's belief that a measure was injurious to his own constituency (usually simply his own estate), even after the act had already been approved, became enough to strike the act. It became increasingly difficult to get action taken. <strong><em>The liberum veto also provided openings for foreign diplomats to get their ways, through bribing nobles to exercise it</em></strong>. [Emphases added, JDM]<br> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions_of_Poland , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto</p> </blockquote> <p>Sounds kind of like our US Senate nowadays, doesn't it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Shalapata Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 <p>Lex, Most legislators are completely incognizant of the legalities of proposed legislation. That's why there is a separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial.<br> For a legislator to pre-determine if a bill is constitutional or not would be asking too much of most of them, regardless of the "obvious" unconstitutionality.</p> Ian Shalapataipsfoto.com | info@ipsfoto.comFreelance Multimedia Journalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 <p>In most states, when a bill reaches a certain point in the process it gets passed to legislative staffers for a report. The staff includes lawyers and other experts who comment on issues like constitutionality. It would be unusual for a state-level bill that's clearly unconstitutional to make it through the legislator without the legislators having an idea of what they're doing. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 <p>... And it's not illegal in France either.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 <p>Believing what one reads in newspapers is an act of faith. Whether it is true, valid or not, you cannot ban the media from publishing it. I keep hearing about the sacredness of freedom of speech in the USA (for instance) and also the desire to censor information about ill-conceived bills and such. You can't really have it both ways. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 <p>Arthur, are you referring to my post? I was making a joke and referring to the headline of this thread, not a headline in a newspaper. The title of this thread is what's false and I only said it should be banned as a joke, playing off on the false claim that photography was being banned, when it was only certain kinds of photos that would be banned. I don't consider anything sacred, but I do hold as very important and basic the U.S. concept of freedom of speech. No one here, to my knowledge, has advocated censoring information about ill-conceived bills.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now