First France, now Vermont ?

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>Steve: That's some pretty good irony there, using that particular metaphor.</p>

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.

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>... And it's not illegal in France either.</p>

<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>

<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>