would you comply with this?

[uk]

I have no issue or interest in the nudity. This thread is about the 'POLICY' and the right for

someone to use intimidation to stop a photographer pursuing his chosen course of action.

 

There are laws about being a nuisance and causing a disturbance of the peace that can

prevent a photographer from doing just as he pleases. That's fine by me, but I reject any

self imposed security officer from coming on heavy, just to please his masters.

 

We have a famous soccer team here called Manchester United. Long lenses are not

allowed in the ground. Tripods are not allowed in the street outside, enforced by security

to protect the brand. Japanese tourists get told to move on.

 

The rights for photographing the New York Marathon are being syndicated and the public

cannot use anything with greater resolution than a camera phone on the streets of the

city. Revenue talks. Gravel rash only stings.

[worldnakedbikeride]

Whew...! This is getting to be a long thread. The recent posts left me with plenty of responses.

 

Trevor said there weren't reports in the press, but there were a lot actually. Here's the BBC one which features footage and their guestimate of numbers (over 500) not our count of 795 leaving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5067154.stm

 

More news coverage will be arriving on a regular basis, and links will all be posted on the wiki website eventually.

http://wiki.worldnakedbikeride.org

 

Gary - Sorry you find the photo policy offensive, as I find it very practical and helpful. I don't think our "policy encourages organised bodies to assume powers that contavene [photographers] basic right [to take photos in public]." Our policy encourages people to cooperate in addressing photographers that are a problem. To my knowledge there has never been any physical threat or violence wielded against a photographer who was being a problem at our events. Likewise in your later post you suggest that we are trying to suggest that people have "the right ... to use intimidation to stop a photographer". That's not the aim of the policy - we don't encourage intimidation. I've never seen a photographers stopped at the ride through intimidation. I'm really dissapointed to hear about the way that the law has been used against photographers at Man United games and the New York Marathon. Those laws are insane, and you are right that revenue talks. Don't worry, we don't have any revenue (�200 was this year's entire annual London ride budget), nor do we have any Security Officers. We're not trying to add the laws against public photography - we're asking photographers who attend our event to behave in a respectful manner, and encouraging riders to verbally confront problem photographers.

 

Garrison - our policy is designed to protect men and women alike, but the examples of problem behaviour so far have occured toward women. We aren't stopping women from making their own choices. If no one is bothered by a photographer, the policy isn't enforced. We don't have a big anti-photo security force like the ones described for the Football and Marathon, we only have riders who are encouraged to (verbally) confront problem photographers directly (and collectively if necessary). "Mostly all male nudity. Weird." - first I disagree with this statement, and secondly it may have been that more women said "please don't take my photo" and the photographer's complied with the women's wishes. As to your third paragraph... uh... it looks like we really made you angry, and I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here (since I totally disagree with each of your points, but it seems like you aren't even listening to the points that I'm raising).

 

As you might expect, I'm pretty much in agreement with Col Loc about how to think about these issues, and I think that Michael M has made some very intelligent contributions (though I believe that humiliation tactics should be avoided if possible).

 

I was at both the York and London rides (both of which used the photo policy), and I personally observed no prurient photography that was upsetting or distressing any riders. I can say for sure that the no photographers upset riders at the York ride even though there were absolutely loads of photos taken. While the York ride had 62 riders, the London ride had 695 riders at the start and 800+ estimated at the end. As far as I can tell, the London ride photo policy was broadly a success this year because I had no reports of problem photography. I'm keen to learn more about the incident Michael Mounteney observed where three women were annoyed with creepy photographers and one was genuinely distressed. This is precisely the sort of incident we wanted to stop. I understand from what was written that people asked the photographers to stop. That's really great. Nobody felt confident that they should do this at the 2004 ride, even though there were plenty of people who didn't feel comfortable with the photographers behaviour. Although this isn't always enough to disuade problem photographers, there are other options as you helpfully point out - obscuring the subject of the photography and trying to shame the problem photographer (also very effective is when the subject directly addresses the photographer describing the photographer's behaviour aloud so all can hear).

 

Michael - Could you describe the incident more fully? (did it occur before/after the ride, what actually happened, how did the situation resolve)

 

In terms of the questions of the ride trying to terminate the rights of photographers, we simply aren't doing this. We're not asking for laws to be levied against photographers, we're simply encouraging people to work together to intervene when a photographer acts in a disrespectful, and unreasonable (though legal) manner toward the ride participants. Although the area at Wellington Arch is normally a simple public space, when we used it, it became a changing area, and as such it seems reasonable to ask people to respect people's privacy. A great number of professionals take part in the ride, and many of them would like to avoid having their photo appear on the internet because they could run into trouble at work, so we ask that people respect the no-close ups without permission rule.

 

The policy isn't enforced by security heavies, but by ordinary riders themselves. The ride is organised by a small collective and we don't have anywhere near the numbers to address every issue that may arise at the assembly point. We designed the photography policy so that it would encourage people to verbally confront photographers and seek help if this wasn't enough. I spoke to at least 60 riders, and none of them had witnessed any incident of problem photography behaviour. I'm not so naive as to think that no such behaviour occured, but I imagine that many of the riders successfully (verbally) persuaded the impolite photographers to desist. At the finish of the ride (5.30pm), many riders (men and women) waited for nearly an hour to put their clothes back on. This suggests to me that the riders felt quite happy and feel threatened by badly behaved photographers.

 

During the period of the last two years, there have been 7 documentary camera people on the ride, hundreds of riders with cameras, and dozens of professional photographers. The only incident that I've heard of is one where the riders were angry at a photographer who insisted on trying to take photos of a woman who said she didn't wish to be photographed. This incident ended with a number of riders getting irrate with the photographer, and the woman walking into the crowd (away from the problem photographer). That's not a nice situation, but as far as I heard it didn't dissuade the rider from coming back the next year. Every female friend I've asked gets treated disrespectfully on the street by men, and they hate it. They still walk on the street though, and they don't view men as the enemy - just the jerks who think it's fun to say things that are 1) creepy, 2) intrusive, 3) intimidating, 4) hostile, 5) inappropriate (sexual comments, etc). The ride policy can not ensure that no problems arise, but it provides enough guidance that riders can work collectively to stop pervy problem photographers when they are spotted. I stand by the policy as it seems to work, and all the female (and male) riders I spoke to after the ride seemed to have had a great time without harrassment by problem photographers.

 

Overall, it was a terrific ride in all four British cities (each of which had a ride photography policy). Michael Mounteney is the first this year to describe an incident (only two other minor -but relatively unpleasant- incidents were reported to me from last year's ride). The numbers at the rides were 160+ for Brighton's first ride, 800+ for London's third ride (at ride finish), 62 for York's first ride (at ride start), 30+ for Manchester's first ride (at ride start). All rides reported general enjoyment, success at conveying the environmental message and good reception from police/public. Both York and London had full permission from the police for both the route and nudity. We contributed 4 of the 54 rides worldwide this year. Next year's ride in London will be on Saturday the 9th of June. Hope to see some of you there exercising your legal right to photography in public (but naturally behaving in a courteous and reasonable manner toward riders, and asking before taking close-up photos).

 

http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org

 

Cheers,

Jesse

(from the London Ride Planning Collective)

[thomas_sullivan]

"...Because, rights or not, that sort of lack of respect for someone would earn you a fair covering of gravel rash from me..."....of one thing you can always be sure. Those that initiate physical force, or threaten the use of physical force, to another human being, are definitely not concerned with freedom and rights. That is the basis of what freedom is all about. The protection against the threat or initiation of physical force upon another human being for exercising their rights.

 

Actually, there are two things that always give away the freedom hating person........intiation (or threat) of physical force and/or any attempt to prohibit the flow of information, be it written, spoken or visual.

 

Somebody above is not doing too well on either account....IMHO.

[worldnakedbikeride]

I thought it was clear that Col was speculating about what he might do if a photographer wouldn't leave him alone after being asked. He never said that this was how riders enforcing the ride photo policy should behave. We all have our snapping point, and I think he was saying that an unrelenting and disrespectful photographer would be enough to enrage him. This seems pretty normal behaviour to me. Lots of celebrities snap on photographers (and as has been pointed out, you can be prosecuted for assault for physically attacking someone). I'm sure each of us can think of a situation that would prompt violence in someone who is being mistreated. The thing is, the ride policy doesn't advocate humiliation or violence - and it's never resulted in either. Since we're talking about the policy, I think we should drop the discussion of what Col's personal snapping point would be.

 

Just to remind everyone about what he posted -

"So, (to discuss this point in general not in the context of the naked bike ride) if for some reason you decided to snap me and came up to me and started snapping away and I asked you not to you'd just carry on? Because, rights or not, that sort of lack of respect for someone would earn you a fair covering of gravel rash from me"

[mike dixon]

Regarding respect: If I were out in public in an area where smoking is allowed, and I insisted that a smoker immediately put out his cigarette because I didn't like it, then attacked him physically because he refused to follow my demand, would the general perception be that he was the one showing me a lack of respect?

 

All of the arguments I've seen presented here trying to justify the policy against photography make a big issue of the photographers' lack of respect for their subjects, but they completely gloss over the lack of respect for others evident in insisting that they give up their legal right to take photos. If you are going to dismiss respect for the legal rights and desires of the photographer, why expect them to respect the "privacy" of people who are getting undressed in a public place?

[thomas_sullivan]

...where exactly did I refer to the naked bike ride in my last comment. He implicitly (possibly even explicitly) threatened me, and I explained exactly what kind of person makes those kinds of threats.

 

This thread is useless anymore........you cannot stop me from taking pictures in public........that is the subject the original poster presented, and all my comments refer to that or the extension of that particular subject.....meaning, that after someone tells me to stop doing something I have the right to do.....the only way they can stop me is to threaten physical force. And Col was kind enough to prove my point for me.

 

take care.....

[michael_mounteney]

Jesse: send a message to mounty at wrandyke dot demon dot co dot uk

and I will provide the details of who was harrassed and how.

[col_loc]

Tom - I did not implicitly or explicitly threaten you.

I do not believe that you would behave in a manner as I described in that scenario - most folk would have more respect than that. Likewise, I wouldn't behave in a violent manner either. The gravel rash comment was supposed to be humerous - if I was threatening violence surely I'd not used old fashioned out dated terminology like that! Gravel rash was a threat that burly northern footballers from Bolton would make to southern opponents in the early days of football.... bolton defender to the other teams striker "tha traas to git past me lad and tha'll git gravel rash..."......

The reality is that I am not a violent person, I'd much rather use the 'run like hell' option if violence is threatened!

Likewise, surely you wouldn't behave in similar way to this scenario? Or would you?

I suspect not. The point being that all this talk of photography policies and your 'rights' is irrelevant.

If I'm wrong and you would behave like that then someone, maybe not me, but someone will give you a gravel rashing and you'll get no sympathy from me!

 

Quoting laws and rights shows narrow thinking to me - the law is a very fluid thing, constantly changing to suit society, and the only rights you have are the ones that have been fought for by people who often had to break the (then) current law to activate change. No doubt if you'd have lived back then you'd have opposed the changes? During the US civil rights challenges darwenism 'proved' that white people were further along the evolutionary chain than black and therefore slightly suprerior. Understanding that this was wrong would have meant thinking outside current convention, which is the whole point of things like the WNBR - to bring attention to issues that are contraversial because they are not within the confines of current convention.

thinking 'outside the box' - you might disagree (which you are fully entitled to) but to think that it is wrong and the people therefore stupid.... "I don't understand it - therefore its wrong" is an attitude I notice so much when anyone voices an opinion that speaks against anyone who bring an issue that is outside current convention.

Maybe in some ways I'm guilty of the same - I don't understand this intolerance - therefore I think its wrong.....? I'll mull over that!!!

 

I'll leave you guys to it - you obviously are not going to talk about the issue, just find points to disagree with. I'll leave you to it.

 

Big up the naked riders - well done guys and gals I for one am glad that there are folk willing to take the flack and go and do things like this.

[mike dixon]

It's interesting that you bring up the issue of civil rights. I don't think anyone has presented any kind of argument why people in public should have a right to determine whether or not they are photographed other than the personal discomfort of the person being photographed. I think there's a very strong moral basis and argument to be made against having laws and policies which discriminate against people because of their race; I don't see a very strong moral basis or argument for granting people the right to prohibit others from doing things that make them uncomfortable. Think of the repercussions of granting such a right.

 

Suppose a minority family wanted to move into a white neighborhood. Should the families living there already have a right to prohibit the minority family from moving in because they are uncomfortable with the idea (and not simply because they are racist--they might have concerns about falling property values, increasing racial tensions among their other neighbors, etc)? Does the minority family demonstrate a lack of respect for their new neighbors by moving in despite their objections? Would the minority family "get no sympathy" from you if someone decided to throw rocks through their windows (or worse)?

 

Re "Quoting laws and rights shows narrow thinking to me": Dismissing laws or rights when they conflict with your personal opinions or desires is hardly a sign of open mindedness. Consider the basis and rationale for those laws and rights, and consider the implications of changing those laws and rights to suit your preferences.

[col_loc]

Ah - I did say I'd leave you all to it, but at last a reasonable debate unfolds...!

To answer your last point first, quoting laws and rights does not equate to narrow mindedness, but proping up an argument with nothing but rights and laws quoted, with no offer of discussion because there is nothing to discuss (after all - its a law and a right....) is pretty narrow minded.

 

However, that obviously does not include you!

 

Although I don't entirely like it I think the law concerning photography of people in public places should remain as it is. Its a shame that 'common sense' judgements cannot be made in the law - it would be nice if it would work but obviously it would be far to abmiguous in relaity. I think its important that people can capture on film moments and events in public life, often this is important to civil liberties.

However, the policy in question does not attempt to change the law, and the organisers of the ride recognise that it is not something that cannot be upheld by the law. It seems to me to be more along the lines of building into the outline of the ride something that relies on common sense. Like I said, as far as I could see in the DVD the streets of london were lined with members of the public snapping away as the ride went past, and no one had any problems with this.

 

Do you suggest that they simply should not have a policy on photography?

Most of the riders would not want to ride if their nudity was presented in a creepy, lewd or pornographic way. Oil dependancy aside, nudity like this tries to challenge societies values of nudity representing sexuality and somehow being depraved.

(to make a comment such as "if they are stupid enough to go naked in public then what do they expect" only shows an unwillingness to even attempt to understand the thinking behind the ride - not that you said that Mike, but is had been said here.)

 

Obviously it is impossible to prevent this, especially in the light of the photography rights within the law, but I would have thought that for the WNBR it would be necessary to include in the policies something about photography.

 

Initially the issue of civil liberties and rights and the law was brought up, then it was pointed out that this policy is not enforcable by law, and therefore I say that it is not the same issue. I cannot understand why it has upset so many of you so much, but maybe that is my ignorance to your subject?

 

If you had been there and wanted to photograph you'd have gotten as many shots as you'd have liked I'm sure.

 

 

Finally, although I do appreciate that someone has finally made a debate of this issue, I do think your example is not exactly relevant!

It is a little strange to talk of someones discomfort being photographed and to make an analogy of racial discrimination. The only link is the word 'discomfort' and therefore I'd say that this link is fairly weak.... But, I do see the point you are trying to make and can think of lots of other scenario's where someone's 'discomfort' would be no basis for a change in the law.

 

Happy snapping!

 

Col.

[thomas_sullivan]

"...Do you suggest that they simply should not have a policy on photography? Most of the riders would not want to ride if their nudity was presented in a creepy, lewd or pornographic way..."

 

You are still the one that doesn't understand all this. I have the right to take any picture of any person in a public place. That is law.......that is fact.....and actually, that is common sense. Now, to your comment i copied above............that scenario has absolutely nothing to do with TAKING the picture. It has to do with what is done with the picture afterwards. And that is an extremely important thing to seperate from the taking of the pic. And each has to be dealt with completely separately. And that is also a law..........libel laws to be exact. If I take the picture and present it as news, or as it is with no words attached to it....not title, no headline..........then the picture speaks for itself and the viewer's interpretation of it is whatever they get out of it. And I have not made any libel statements. However, if I make the title or the headline or somehow imply lewdness to the picture, then and only then am I infringing upon another's rights. And yes, I would be wrong. Just because I take the picture, you cannot impose to read my thoughts and say I will do harm with the picture. Only after I actually commit libel, can you do something about it.

 

And I am far from narrowminded..........I just actually know how to differentiate seperate actions and put them in their proper perspective.

[Brad_]

<I>Do you suggest that they simply should not have a policy on photography?</I><BR>

 

It is not your place to impose any <I>policy</i> on others. As Tom said, you still don't

get it.<P>

 

<I>Finally, although I do appreciate that someone has finally made a debate of this

issue,</I><BR>

 

Huh??? There is no debate here. The law is very clear. <P>

 

<i>Most of the riders would not want to ride if their nudity was presented in a creepy,

lewd or pornographic way.</I><<BR>

 

Fortunately, people can choose not to participate in the ride, if they feel

uncomfortable.<P>

 

<I>I cannot understand why it has upset so many of you so much, but maybe that is my

ignorance to your subject?</I><BR>

 

Hardly upset. - more amused by your tiny rants.

[col_loc]

aha! at last tom makes a decent argument! :-)

Point well made tom, and you are right in your explanation there of the differences in presenting the pics and how libel comes into it. Taking the pic and presenting it are two different actions. In speaking of problems in the way the photo's are 'presented' I was wrong to say what I did.

Please allow me to re-word it following your clafification!

The 'policy' is (or seems to me to be) more to do with innapropriate behaviour of some people taking the pics - trying to seperate a lone woman from the crowd, extreme close-ups etc. Innapropriate ways to behave and considering this makes the policy justified in my opinion.

 

Remember that this policy in no way threatens your rights as it cannot be enforced by the law and, as I have said too many times, on the footage of the ride it looked like hundreds of pics were taken with no complaints.

 

Have you no sympathy or even just understanding for the reasons that this policy was made? I'm not asking this in an 'incredulous' tone of voice, its a genuine question.

Cheers,

Col.

[EricM]

"Do you suggest that they simply should not have a policy on photography?"

 

Of course. Did it take this whole thread for it to just sink in?

 

Isn't public nudity illegal? And you expect to use a self concocted illegal photography policy to support the "comfort" of a gender that would naturally in your society be focused on during this kind of illegal activity?

[col_loc]

Brad, it ain't my policy, and can I ask you why its such a threat to you?

'impose a policy on you' - as has been pointed out they cannot impose the policy on you.

Debate? the only reason you can't see the debate is that you can't see the debate........

 

I only wish my world was as clear-cut, black and white as yours obviously is.

 

Not upset? then whats all this about then - it all started because you lot were getting upset! Its been quite entertaining. :-D

 

However, I really have not got time for you wierdo's and anoraks, you've heard my piece and you know I'm right, I'll leave for pastures new and go enlighten some other poor misguided souls.

 

Happy snapping but you'd better ask me before taking my pic or it'll be gravel rash...... ;-)

[Brad_]

<I>However, I really have not got time for you wierdo's and anoraks, you've heard my piece

and you know I'm right</I><P>

 

Oh how you flatter yourself. Of course when you run out of gas and have to resort to

insults...

[worldnakedbikeride]

What the policy does is encourage people to intervene in legal (non-violent) ways in order to discourage and stop problem photographers. It is not legally binding in any way.

 

Do you have a problem with this?

 

Here's an analogy of how the policy or rule functions -

It is like saying we'll play a game of soccer/football and you can't wear metal cleats on your shoes. If someone insists on playing with metal cleats they are asked to leave the game. There is no legal power for them to be removed from the game, but people normally turn to the law to resolve things as a last resort. When someone doesn't agree to play by the rules of a group event, then I think people should intervene.

 

Here's another soccer/football example.

A non-professional team is playing in a public park. By your logic, it's fine for any photographer to go onto the playing area of the non-professional soccer/football match in order to take photos REGARDLESS of what the players, coaches, supporters say. Although it's disruptive to the occasion and puts people into a bad mood, the photographer has a legal right to take photos, and people shouldn't be such complainers because this freedom is more important than the non-professional game.

 

Would you say that just because something is legal, it is necessarily right and deserves support. We drew up the policy in order to make it clear what we feel is the right behaviour for the event. This was necessary because people don't encounter public nudity often, and it's not always clear to the public what behaviour is appropriate to the occasion.

 

So, I'd really like to know the answer to my question above -

 

Do you have a problem with our policy as I've described it in the first paragraph?

 

Eric- as to the legality of public nudity, it varies widely from region to region. It is actually legal in England but it isn't so clearly legal in Scotland. In Burlington, VT and Manchester, England police were quoted as saying that it was legal. Police fully approved the conditions of the event in London (including filling out all the paperwork and sending along 15 officers to assist us). They were absolutely clear that "nudity in itself is not an offence in England". Brighton claimed that nudity on the ride would constitute a violation of the Public Order Act section 5 (section 1 is rioting, section 2 is affray, etc) - it is doubtful that this legislation would have succeeded in court, but riders did make token effort to cover themselves in the hope that next year the police would be more cooperative.

 

More info on legality of nudity in England is at -

http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/uk/faq/

 

Cheers,

Jesse

[mike dixon]

As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, resolving the "problem" is a simple matter of holding up a few sheets to provide a measure of privacy to people undressing. It doesn't infringe on anyones rights--people still have the freedom to photograph what is in plain sight. However, it doesn't give the same sense of power as you'd get from having a policy that tells people to surrender their rights, and it doesn't lead to the same sanctimonious self-satisfaction one might get from labeling people who ignore the policy "perverts." Why the emphasis on enforcing a policy that infringes the rights of others when there are simple, more-effective, non-confrontational means of dealing with the problem?

[mike dixon]

Regarding the football analogies: The first case fails on several counts. Participating in a game always involves accepting a set of mostly-arbitrary rules, and there's a reasonable argument for disallowing metal cleats because they cause an unacceptable increase in the risk of serious injury. But the photographers at the ride are more like spectators than participants at a football match. Are spectators at the football match not allowed to wear metal cleats?

 

The second case, as presented, has very little in common with the ride's photography policy. Are photographers standing in the path of riders in a manner that is causing danger to themselves and the riders? Are photographers at the football match prohibited from taking photos of players warming up or on the sidelines? Should photographers at the match be required to ask permission of each player before photographing him?

[uk]

"Col Loc , jun 13, 2006; 07:05 p.m.

 

Happy snapping but you'd better ask me before taking my pic or it'll be gravel rash...... "

 

You ain't big enough in mind, or body....... ;-)

[uk]

Jesse,

 

"Do you have a problem with our policy as I've described it in the first paragraph?"

 

I have every sympathy with your wish for privacy and if it was my wife/daughter getting

the attention I would have something to say. However, they would also receive my

criticism for putting themselves in that situation without due care.

 

However, I would not call on a wider group to impose my wishes and would rely on the

police to stop undue interference.

 

As for your Policy, it can only apply to members of your own group and anybody else who

wants to participate. It cannot apply to 'the public'. Your encouragement to call on other

participants to enforce your policy is fundamentally wrong and threatening. I recognise

that the intent is only to apply it in the extreme, but I still think 'the Policy' is out of order.

 

The Policy followed by the likes of Col and her stupid threatening behaviour will do your

cause a lot of damage.

 

:-)

[terry_rory]

Bunch of self-obsessed public willy wagglers who did not have the sense to realise they were competing for attention with England's first match of the World Cup finals on the same afternoon! Decision.. "do we go and watch a few beardy old eco-warriors get nekked on bikes or watch the footy?" Hmmm.

 

Load of old bollocks. Literally.

[michael s.]

Do you suppose, Trevor, that the naked riders and the soccer players were competing for the same "fan base" ? :)

[terry_rory]

I wish the naked riders had had the full attention of the England soccer fanbase. ("We interrupt this match to bring you live footage of some naked weirdos on bikes in London instead.") Lets see them threaten that lot with 'gravel rash'.

[bill_fox1]

Sorry for the long message. This thread was very interesting. People seem to be obsessed with the legality of the policy. The statement was made up front, it isn�t legally binding. Take you pics, you will not be stopped.

 

Let me start by saying that, from what I saw, most riders had a great time. Many of the men and women there enjoyed the attention they were getting. These were easily identified by the fact that when they saw a camera, they stood up, smiled and spread their arms wide to ensure you got a good pic.

 

There were a few that were clearly distraught by the attention they were getting. People took photographs of their partially or fully naked bodies. These were perhaps the ones that deserve our respect most. They were not comfortable being naked, but felt they could make a statement by exposing themselves for a cause. They truly believed and were willing to expose themselves to embarrassment. I must applaud them.

 

I think an interesting argument that has not been raised is the fact that these people were engaged in a political protest. They chose to attract attention to their cause by riding or skating in a fashion intended to shock. The logic being this; If I stand up on the street corner and shout a message, no one will listen. If I take my clothes off and shout the message, they will come to look at my body. If they want to look at my body, they have to get close enough to hear my message. Their nakedness IS an integral part of their political message. If I choose to photograph the participants, I am forced to recall the message they were trying to convey. If I show the photo to a friend, I probably need to explain WHY this person was sitting, butt naked, on a bicycle. So, is not the photographer actually helping spread the protester�s message?

 

As for use, if I took one of these photos and posted it on the bulletin board at the office with a subtitle �SLUT� then I have truly maligned the individual, and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

 

Would I obey these rules? That depends. Could someone define �Close-up?� Were they intending that I shouldn�t walk up to a woman and photograph a single breast, or I should get close enough to see their faces? If the definition is the former, then yes. If it was the latter, then no.

 

My favorite photo from the day was of a completely naked, very attractive woman, posing with two young Japanese girls. The girls were thrilled to have their picture taken with the naked woman, and the naked woman was truly comfortable enough with her body to pose with them. It was the coolest thing, and no one minded the photographers taking the pictures.<div></div>