Photographer Banned

[jpo3136b]

<p>I guess if you want to Live Free or Die, you've got to go to New Hampshire.</p>

<p>I had a look at his photos, and didn't see anything bad or wrong with them. I don't see that they would be considered lewd or socially shocking or anything like that; I didn't see what would be the source of complaint, beyond unfamiliarity.</p>

<p>When Thomas Wolfe wrote "Look Homeward, Angel," (he later wrote "You Can't Go Home Again,") the whole town of Asheville, North Carolina hated his guts. They pretty much had a parade, wanting to throw him out of town. He probably went to New York for a while, in part, because things became unbearable in Asheville.</p>

<p>20 years later, the people who were mentioned in his book (he had patterned fictional characters very closely off of local residents) were proud that they were noted in there. These were the same people who had reviled him before, for revealing their secrets and portraying their lives.</p>

<p>People can be finicky. It's a self confidence problem.</p>

<p>When <em>Look Homeward, Angel</em> first came out, the talk was all about: So and so is really this character in the book. Buzz, buzz, buzz. 20 years later, people said, Why, yes, I was mentioned in the book. After being a part of the project led to national fame, all kinds of folks were on board who had hated the idea before. In the end, the people who were not mentioned were the ones who felt left out.</p>

<p>In the end, the people in Vermont might have let themselves down. They just demonstrated to the world that they are too wimpy to have a street photographer there. Well, what kind of courage is in that community?</p>

<p>In my view, it's more embarrassing to the community of Burlington than it is to the photographer. Do those folks need some training wheels to help them handle ordinary life? It's just my opinion from far away, but it doesn't look good for those businesses or the whole town, really.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, refusals don't achieve much. That's what they did. They imposed a refusal on somebody. Well, how constructive is that?</p>

<p>Does the rugged Northeasterner need to be coddled when it comes to street photography? Come on.</p>

<p>They can do it, and they did, but it's their bed, and now they have to sleep in it. When it comes to photos, I guess we need to coddle those guys. How about next time, proceed with a little more confidence, Burlington? The trespass order sounds more like a small business tantrum than an example of leadership.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>John: Yeah, it's not about the content of the actual photographs, obviously. It's the ongoing run-ins with this guy, who just seems to be over-fishing in this one very small pond, and hasn't tuned up (or just won't) his people skills enough to turn the local shopkeepers into advocates and assets instead of default defenders of the pedestrian comfort zone. It sure shouldn't come to that, but neither should it be confused with <em>OMG It's A War On Photography!</em></p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>Manuel: no matter how you spin it, you <em>are</em> saying that people who defend property rights are no morally different than racists</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The result is the same whether you are doing it because you believe that certain type of people are inferior or if you are doing it in the name of property rights. So, yes that is one way that it can be stated, but morally is a word that you choose, I choose to state that the results are the same what ever the reason. For a person to be excluded only because of his color or etnicity the reasoning makes no different. Some rights do trump property rights, we fought a civil war for that, African Americans were property at one time in our history.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Oh, I concur, Matt. In the big picture, too, it's going to be a forgotten incident in a week. Both sides could have done better. Personal fouls on the game field of life: there's more to all of us than that. We all do a bad job of managing ourselves sometimes.</p>

<p>Too bad we can't People's Court 'em into kissing and making up.</p>

[jeff_rauch]

<p>I need to stop reading the forums. I read the story, and (going against the grain) I side with the people NOT the photographer. I get the whole 1st amendment right side of things, but stop a minute and look at the story from the business owners/customers point of view. The photographer is hanging out and making alot of people very uncomfortable. According to the article they have approached him about this, but he is unwilling to change his tactics or find a new place to shoot photos. To a store, this guy is hurting their business. No one wants to shop at a place where that "creepy" photographer takes people's picture. Even I would drive out of my way to avoid that kind environment. So what options do the stores have to save their business? Pretty much none. The guy isn't doing anything "illegal" he is just setting a piss poor example for photographers by being stubborn and unprofessional. So the stores do the only thing they can, they call the police. The police visit his office, hoping to "catch" him with some illegal photography. I saw that the photographer and even some of the forum comments were offended by this, but come on, people were complaining about this guy shooting photos of their kids and young women. Not just a couple people either, enough to make the police curious. So I have no pity for this guy, and as far as the 1st amendment is concerned, this is a poor use for what it stands for. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean there isn't a certain amount of courtesy involved. Street photography is great, but if you be discrete and courteous, you shouldn't be doing it. </p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>This will be my last post on this subject, so you can intrepret what I write in what ever manner you may choose. I do not necessarily condone how this photographer acts, what I am saying is that the chipping away of rights is done a little bit at a time. Pick an act that is evil and use it to chip away a little of the right, the next act committed may not be as blatant, but a little more of a right is chipped away, such is history, such is man. That is why the NRA fights so hard against any gun control.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>The result is the same whether you are doing it because you believe that certain type of people are inferior or if you are doing it in the name of property rights.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are (deliberately, it's plain, now) avoiding the reality, here Manuel. You're pitching a nice false dichotomy out there along with your straw man argument. We're talking about a single person's <em>behavior</em>, not their race, creed, or other spurious (in this context) qualities. Who <em>cares</em> if the result is the same? That has absolutely nothing to do with the moral/ethical issues in play. Playing the moral equivalency card is ironic, since you're yourself taking a moral position on the whole subject. You're allowed to judge someone's actions, but others are not?<br /><br />A rapist who kills his victim isn't the moral equivalent of a woman who kills a rapist in self defense. A shopkeeper who refuses to serve <em>individual people</em> (say, five guys who are members of a local biker gang that - through their <em>behavior</em> - frightens his customers away) is not operating under the same moral/ethical framework as someone who refuses to serve, for instance, anyone who is Asian. The <em>outcome</em> (someone is refused entrance to the business) is not the same because the two situations - and the ethics that govern them - have nothing to do with each other. Basing your entire reaction to this story on an assertion that they <em>are</em> the same does a real disservice to those that acted to straighten it all out decades ago. You trivialize their efforts by conflating them with a tone-deaf <em>individual</em> who can't handle himself in public. That's a shame. <br /><br />As for your assertion about the chipping away of rights, you've still never actually mentioned what right this photographer has lost. You've haven't, because <em>he hasn't lost any</em>.</p>

[photogorilla]

<blockquote>

<p>Your stance and a few others who believe so strongly on such property rights puts you in the same camp as the persons who used that right to keep Negros, Mexicans, Japs, out of many business establishments. I will repeat it again so there is no question as to what was previously written (reworded to make it clear), I know where you would have been in the 50s and 60s on the side of the property right advocates.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I will repeat that you you don't know that - you are assuming that. Speaking of "same camp" - that's quite a broad brush you're using, Manuel. In fact, it seems just as broad as the one used in the 50's & 60's that you're so fond of referencing.</p>

<p>As Matt said earlier, until you can wrap your head around the fact that the property rights being discussed in this situation are individual rights, maybe there shouldn't be a rights discussion at all.</p>

[photogorilla]

<p>Well, this thread really took on a life of its own, didn't it? My intention when I started this was to get a feeling for what people thought and how they would handle what I saw as a pretty difficult situation in that both parties seemed to be within their rights.</p>

<p>What I have concluded is that there is no baby to cleave. The photographer can keep on shooting and the owner has protected her business. I suppose you could make the argument that the photographer has lost a location or subject, but then again, if it was important enough for him to keep, I would think he would have changed his behavior at any of the previous times he was asked to stop "creeping out" the customers.</p>

<p>And let's not forget the store owner. I read in at least one of the articles that she is a supporter of the arts community. Since this incident, she has received angry and possibly threatening phone calls. That's just wrong, considering the situation. I can only hope this mess doesn't negatively affect her desire to continue to support the artists in her community.</p>

<p>Other detritus:<br>

The photographer doesn't shy away from conflict and has, in fact, used it in his photography at the expense of his subject(s). Ok, if that's what trips his trigger. It is certainly not the way I would handle it, but that's part of what makes photography so individualistic. However, I am concerned about any fallout from his behavior on other photographers. One bad apple, etc., etc.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>It's about using the police as your own personal army without due process of law</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Once again, this lack of due process talk is nonsense. The photographer can file a challenge in court. That IS due process. The service and delivery of legal documents, causing restrictions on people initiated by other people and businesses, by government officials occurs constantly and is used to ENSURE due process so that people have notice and opportunity to be heard to challenge the validity of the action being taken. The situation as stated above is not only incorrect, its goes so far as to be the opposite of what is stated. </p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li><a title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution" href="../wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">First Amendment</a> – <a title="Establishment Clause of the First Amendment" href="../wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment">Establishment Clause</a>, <a title="Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment" href="../wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment">Free Exercise Clause</a>; <a title="Freedom of speech" href="../wiki/Freedom_of_speech">freedom of speech</a>, of the <a title="Freedom of the press" href="../wiki/Freedom_of_the_press">press</a>, <a title="Freedom of Religion" href="../wiki/Freedom_of_Religion">Freedom of Religion</a>, and of <a title="Freedom of assembly" href="../wiki/Freedom_of_assembly">assembly</a>; <a title="Right to petition in the United States" href="../wiki/Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States">right to petition</a>, </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<dl>

<blockquote><dd><em>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</em> </dd></blockquote>

</dl>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li><a title="Second Amendment to the United States Constitution" href="../wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Second Amendment</a> – <a title="Militia (United States)" href="../wiki/Militia_(United_States)">Militia (United States)</a>, <a title="Sovereign state" href="../wiki/Sovereign_state">Sovereign state</a>, <a title="Right to keep and bear arms" href="../wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms">Right to keep and bear arms</a>. </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<dl>

<blockquote><dd><em>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.</em> <sup id="cite_ref-4" ><a href="../photography-news-forum/#cite_note-4">[5]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-5" ><a href="../photography-news-forum/#cite_note-5">[6]</a></sup> </dd></blockquote>

</dl>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li><a title="Third Amendment to the United States Constitution" href="../wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Third Amendment</a> – Protection from <a title="Quartering Act" href="../wiki/Quartering_Act">quartering</a> of troops. </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<dl>

<blockquote><dd><em>No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.</em> </dd></blockquote>

</dl>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li><a title="Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution" href="../wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Fourth Amendment</a> – Protection from unreasonable <a title="Search and seizure" href="../wiki/Search_and_seizure">search and seizure</a>. </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<dl>

<blockquote><dd><em>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no <a title="Warrant (law)" href="../wiki/Warrant_(law)">Warrants</a> shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</em> </dd></blockquote>

</dl>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li><a title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" href="../wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Fifth Amendment</a> – <a title="Due process" href="../wiki/Due_process">due process</a>, <a title="Double jeopardy" href="../wiki/Double_jeopardy">double jeopardy</a>, <a title="Self-incrimination" href="../wiki/Self-incrimination">self-incrimination</a>, <a title="Eminent domain" href="../wiki/Eminent_domain">eminent domain</a>. </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<dl>

<blockquote><dd><em>No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a <a title="Grand Jury" href="../wiki/Grand_Jury">Grand Jury</a>, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.</em> </dd></blockquote>

</dl>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li><a title="Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution" href="../wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Sixth Amendment</a> – <a title="Trial by jury" href="../wiki/Trial_by_jury">Trial by jury</a> and <a title="Rights of the accused" href="../wiki/Rights_of_the_accused">rights of the accused</a>; <a title="Confrontation Clause" href="../wiki/Confrontation_Clause">Confrontation Clause</a>, <a title="Speedy trial" href="../wiki/Speedy_trial">speedy trial</a>, <a title="Public trial" href="../wiki/Public_trial">public trial</a>, <a title="Right to counsel" href="../wiki/Right_to_counsel">right to counsel</a> </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<dl>

<blockquote><dd><em>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.</em> </dd></blockquote>

</dl>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li><a title="Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution" href="../wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Seventh Amendment</a> – <a title="Civil law (common law)" href="../wiki/Civil_law_(common_law)">Civil</a> trial by jury. </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<dl>

<blockquote><dd><em>In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.</em> </dd></blockquote>

</dl>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li><a title="Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution" href="../wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Eighth Amendment</a> – Prohibition of <a title="Excessive bail" href="../wiki/Excessive_bail">excessive bail</a> and <a title="Cruel and unusual punishment" href="../wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment">cruel and unusual punishment</a>. </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<dl>

<blockquote><dd><em>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.</em> </dd></blockquote>

</dl>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li><a title="Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution" href="../wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Ninth Amendment</a> – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<dl>

<blockquote><dd><em>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.</em> </dd></blockquote>

</dl>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li><a title="Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution" href="../wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Tenth Amendment</a> – Powers of States and people. </li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<dl>

<blockquote><dd><em>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.</em> </dd></blockquote>

<dd>Let us go over the Bill of Rights and those of you who know <strong>how to wrap your head</strong> on an issue point out to me where property rights rise to the level of individual rights. The closest that we can come is eminent domain, which means that the government has to compensate you for taking property.</dd></dl>

<p>No rights were lost, really, if a police officer told you that they will be looking out for you and that any misstep you go immediately to jail, there are no rights lost? Try having some one tail you any time you enter a store or walk down a street and then tell me that no rights are lost. He lost the right to enter those stores, I guess that is not a right? It is open to the public. Since some of you are fixated on my anology of how property rights were the basis for denying service to minorities I will point out to you that it took many people going to jail to get governments to see that individual property rights do not rise to the level of certain other rights. I would suggest that some of you read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, or if you prefer a smaller book Mein Kampf, plus there many other books on the Civil Right protests of the 60s if you prefer to stick with American history.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

Thank you for posting the ten amendments. Very informative, but how are they relevant to this situation? He had no right to enter those stores in the first place. He was permitted the privilege of entry, subject to the owners' approval. The owners have now given him official notice that they are withdrawing that permission. What constitutionally-protected rights have been denied him?

[andylynn]

<p>I thought you had already written your last post, Manuel. I'm disappointed.</p>

<p>BTW the Bill of Rights limits what the government may do to you, not what <em>private property owners</em> may do. There is nothing in there that stops a private property owner from telling you to stay off their property.</p>

<p>I don't think you understand the situation.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>He lost the right to enter those stores, I guess that is not a right? It is open to the public.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is open to the public under the conditions set by the person who went to the trouble and expense of setting up a business on the property. Nobody has a <em>right</em> to use your property, in the sense that you're using that word. Do you find moral equivalence between Jim Crow era segregation and contemporary businesses with signs that say "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" ... ? Do you? <em>Really</em>? If you do, explain that in detail, with no juvenile Nazi references.<br /><br />Are you suggesting, Manuel, that the citizens of Vermont and the merchants in Burlington are still open for debate on whether or not people can be prohibited from entering a business <em>because of their skin color</em>? Are you suggesting that blocking someone from entering a business because of their <em>behavior</em> should not be possible?<br /><br />Should a shopkeeper be forced to give up <em>his </em>rights, and allow a competitor to walk in and start soliciting business from his customers? A shopkeeper <em>must</em> give up control of his establishment, and allow his coffee house to become a KKK meeting place every Tuesday night? Really? Why?<br /><br />Should a coffee shop owner be <em>forced</em> to provide, re-stock, and clean public restrooms for people who are not their customers? Really? Why? What claim does a passer-by have on the time and resources of another human being?<br /><br />You have to be able to reconcile your answers to those questions with your assertion that individual rights are paramount - even as you imply that the individual rights of a person who happens to run a business aren't as important as the individual rights of a person who wants that business owner to be their unpaid bathroom cleaner.<br /><br />The fact that you feel the need to trot out Hitler pretty much covers it, though. You know, because obviously the people of Vermont are on the hairy edge of genocidal fascism over this whole coffee house incident, right?<br /><br />There's one great irony here, Manuel, that you keep tap-dancing around. Let's say everything goes the way you'd prefer it: that a property owner gets no say over who can enter their property. Fine. Let's stipulate that for a moment. Then what happens? What happens if they <em>do </em>block someone from entering. Who do you call, when you're not allowed in? The police, perhaps? And what do they do? Maybe they inform the shop owner that they <em>must</em> let that person in, and that if they don't comply, it's possible that the next time they violate that rule, they could be subject to the penalty of the law? Do you approve of that?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> if a police officer told you that they will be looking out for you and that any misstep you go immediately to jail, there are no rights lost?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would rights be lost when a police officer tells a coffee shop owner exactly the same thing, because they had the stones to turn away a guy that was poisoning their business? Really? Because you seem to be advocating the very thing you condemn, as long as it's someone you don't like who gets to be told how to act. The difference is that you want to force the shopkeeper to cater to a guy that makes sport out of antagonizing the customers outside the shop door, while the shopkeeper just wants him to go away.<br /><br />It's obvious that you know the difference, but you're trapped in your own earlier posturing on this subject, and rather than think it through, you're rolling out the Third Reich in hopes that we'll all be shocked into thinking... what? That Mr. Scott should run the show in Burlington? That his liberty to do what he wants in the coffee house is more important than the liberty of the person who built it to provide her customers an atmosphere that doesn't include a belligerent photographer getting in their faces?</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>if a police officer told you that they will be looking out for you and that any misstep you go immediately to jail, there are no rights lost?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not the situation here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Try having some one tail you any time you enter a store or walk down a street and then tell me that no rights are lost.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not the situation here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He lost the right to enter those stores</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not the situation here. He had no such right in the first place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it took many people going to jail to get governments to see that individual property rights do not rise to the level of certain other rights.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not the situation here. None of these "certain other rights" are involved here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would suggest that some of you read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, or if you prefer a smaller book Mein Kampf, plus there many other books on the Civil Right protests</p>

</blockquote>

<p>None of the content cited amounts to the situation here.</p>

<p>With all due respect, nothing you are saying at this point is relevant to the situation and, if you think it is, you don't know what you are talking about.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[photogorilla]

<blockquote>

<p>Let us go over the Bill of Rights and those of you who know <strong>how to wrap your head</strong> on an issue</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the invitation, but let's not, since it doesn't apply to the situation. Need more? Re-read anything above.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He lost the right to enter those stores, I guess that is not a right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>EXACTLY!</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Actually the Bill of Rights is tangentially applicable. The 3rd and 4th Amendments imply/reinforce/affirm the rights of property owners to approve or deny entry to their property, and the 10th allows (or rather, does not prohibit) Vermont to write its own trespassing laws.</p>

[tony_cooper5]

<p>In this example the photographer is giving you a commentary about his intentions when taking the pics. He is defending his right against censorship and his own freedoms as a citizen of the free world.<br />Im curious how you see this ...<br /><a rel="nofollow" href=" target="_blank">

<blockquote>

<p>an excerpt<br />some people you know they are just a matter of time before they completely explode. I been watching this m*****f***** like a hawk, he is seriously getting close to the tipping point. While i certainly dont want to be responsible for setting him off, I am very interested in photographing his deterioration.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He is using his camera as a weapon that is clear and it can also be seen that he has the other photos to support his claim that he is doing this.<br />If this was your banned photographer, what are you defending.<br />For me, I adore street photography and for me this 'fellow' photographer is a greater threat than any perceived rights you might think you have.</p>

<p>And a warning, he is not particular about his subject, except that they are unable to defend themselves. He degrades women, race, disability and his language is ugly. He describes himself as a hater.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>That's not the situation here. He had no such right in the first place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which takes us back to the 50s and 60s, Negros, Mexicans, etc. have no right to enter here, you all keep your head wrapped around that idea,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He lost the right to enter those stores, I guess that is not a right? <strong>Exactly</strong>,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>End of argument, if the shoe fits wear it.<br>

Photo who ever you may be, I love you too. Now it is time to go have fun as Yakim says "Happy shooting."</p>

[photogorilla]

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>Superficially, yes. But as you stated, the BoR is about restricting the government, not the people being governed.</p>

<p>Maybe this whole discussion would have been better served if we had never referred to property rights because they are, by default, human rights. Or, to use another description, individual rights.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

(Eh, removed my comment - it's not going to help)

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>hope you guys are all happy.....the photographer in question has quit photography due to this incident</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nycphotorights.com/">http://www.nycphotorights.com/</a></p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I went away for a few days to shoot Kodachrome. I saw this in the news before I left. So as I photographed people for hours in public each day, I told a few about it, discussed it. The overall thought is this: Most people have no problem with professional journalists who make them selves known in a situation like this where giving people a heads up could be a good thing for everyone. Most people don't understand why an amateur photographer would take candid pictures of people they don't know then put them on the internet, think it is creepy and not right if done without permission. <br /> Most people also understand about freedom of speech and first amendment rights, but still think that amateur street photography with intent to publish on the net is creepy. These were ranchers, craft store, coffee shop and bar owners, kids, elderly, etc.<br /> These were non-photo centric people.<br /> Now we look at this thread, the lack of logical and emphathetic thinking would astonish the average person, it sure does me, all I hear is the same old foot stomping about rights. The only thing that is going to take away your rights as a photographer are YOUR actions, YOUR thinking of nothing but rights all the time instead of modern common sense. It's OVER man, the Bresson days are OVER, stop dragging him into this. He actually HAD talent and compassion and he did not live in the days when every D40 toting idiot thinks he is the next Winogrand or works for TMZ. <br /> Another wannabe Winogrand drags it down a notch for everyone, I am getting damn tired of this.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>another link that makes his comments easier to read</p>

<p><a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/03/photos-from-guy-banned-by-coffeeshop-for-taking-pictures-of-people.html">http://consumerist.com/2010/03/photos-from-guy-banned-by-coffeeshop-for-taking-pictures-of-people.html</a></p>

[andylynn]

<p>Normally I fully support that photo rights site, but I think that by referencing the coffee shop and the language used they're being irresponsible.</p>

<p>I don't think anybody (except maybe the smoking woman) is happy about the guy quitting photography.</p>