Photographer Banned

[david_ralph1]

<p>"Suppose the guy violates the order and in such a way that the business owners get annoyed enough at him to call the cops, who issue him a violation and a fine. The fine can be contested in court and if the police can't prove he received the trespass notice it won't stick."</p>

<p>The American body politic is in danger with folks entertaining extremely uniformed ideas such as the above. Someone with beliefs like those could live in a fascist state and not even know it. In the United States, Police only initiate a prosecution which brings a person before a court. In the court process, only after a conviction by a plea or trial of the facts, does the court determine a proper sentence. A proper sentence could be anything from an admonition, to probation, a fine, incarceration, a period of time to observe good behavior and a future dismissal of the charges, an adjudication in contemplation of dismissal.</p>

<p>The willing sheep opting for membership in a police state would let the police convict and then punish, say with a fine for as this poster suggests, with the option for the convicted citizen to go court later and hope for vindication and lifting of the police enforced punishment. With public spirited citizens such as this, American freedoms and democracy will be on their way down the toilet.</p>

<p>The poster is right about one thing, though. The photog in question has been convicted and punished by the police, all without any prior court process at all. All without the process that is "due" prior to conviction and imposition of punishment by the state.</p>

<p>There are minor offenses which can be charged for public disturbances, such as for harassment, disturbing the peace, etc. The Burlington Police made no such charge. They could not as no facts to underlie such charge have been offered. Indeed, the facts that were offered indicate that the police should have undertaken their sworn duty to enforce the highest law of the land, the constitution. In this case, the only facts that provide a basis for police action would be to protect the rights of the photographer. The subjects of his interest offer themselves up for public observation and interaction when they are also on the street.</p>

<p>The poster's America is one that should not be allowed to replace the free America most of were taught this land is supposed to be.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>If the right of business owners is absolute why do they even need a reason to bar one individual or a group of individuals?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They don't. Just like you don't have to tell me, or me and all of my friends, <em>why</em> I'm not allowed in your house, or on your farm, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could I bar all white males from a store, they are not a protected class?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, but you'd seem like an ass, wouldn't you? If you actually <em>are</em> running a business, you make decisions like that while fully aware that you're operating in a market, where you have competition to which patrons will turn if they think you're an idiot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could I bar all mothers with children, they are not a protected class.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course. In fact all sorts of businesses have "no children" rules, and for good reason.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could I bar all hetro couples, they are not a protected class?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again - why would you? And if you do, you're just handing business to someone who doesn't.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Where do we draw the line? Can we refuse to photograph a gay marriage?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Apparently not, if you come right out and say that your reason is that they're gay. Though that may depend on the state in which you operate (see the civil suit in ... New Mexico, wasn't it?). It is funny, though, that a gay photographer probably wouldn't get as much guff for choosing not to shoot a straight wedding - probably because of having the good sense not to make a display of being deliberately beligerant about it turning it down.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To bar some one for exercising his freedom of expression is too arbitrary for my taste.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, it's a good thing that the photographer in Vermont has had no such thing happen to him, right?</p>

[andylynn]

<blockquote>

<p>The American body politic is in danger with folks entertaining extremely uniformed ideas such as the above. Someone with beliefs like those could live in a fascist state and not even know it. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hyperbole aside, if I am wrong about the procedure the police would have to follow it's because I mistook trespassing as an ordinance violation for which the procedure would be a fine that is contestable in city traffic court, same as a parking violation or a noise violation. If it's a misdemeanor that requires a prosecution, my point is still valid as proving the prosecution's case would require showing that the defendant knew he was banned from the property. In the absence of that knowledge he can reasonably assume that like any member of the public he is welcome to walk into a store.</p>

<p>There's no need to invoke fascism.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The poster is right about one thing, though. The photog in question has been convicted and punished by the police, all without any prior court process at all. All without the process that is "due" prior to conviction and imposition of punishment by the state.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is incorrect. No laws have been broken and he hasn't been charged with anything, and the police have taken no action against him. If you still believe that the trespass notice was issued to him by the police, if you had read the article you would have seen that this is not the case, that it is issued by the business owners and delivered by the police, which is all allowed under state law.</p>

<p>I resent being accused of representing some non-free version of America. You don't know me, you don't know for example that I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and a supporter of all sorts of individual rights. These rights happen to include property rights, e.g. the right to tell somebody to stay off your property.</p>

<p>I could also point out that one can be a reasonable person and a supporter of individual rights without believing that anybody has the right to photograph a person in public who has stated they don't want to be photographed. That if the person being photographed is minding their own business and not committing a crime or doing something newsworthy, their right to privacy is in conflict with the photographer's right to artistic expression and an argument against the photographer could be made. I'm not making that argument, but I'm pointing this out to show that there are often cases where two people's rights conflict. In cases like this, reasonable people can disagree without one of them being inherently against individual rights.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>I guess I just don't see most people's arguments here.<br>

Point 1 a lot of people bring up. He was banned for something he was doing in public in is legally entitled to do. Nope, he was banned because customers complained about his legal behavior that creeped them out and his general beligerance when questioned by employees and owners of the business.<br>

Point 2 the police over stepped their bounds. Okay, the questioning at his place of employment sounds like it went a little far, but not excessive if a bunch of people complain about someone's behavior for the police to find out what might be going on. They didn't over step their bounds delivering the no tresspass order from the property owners. The police have delivered requests from me to neighbors over the years about noise disturbances that didn't meet the legal deffinition to result in a fine or legal action. But hey, they wouldn't listen to me when I complained to them, but they listened when a police officer informed them that there was a complaint against them. Same general principle.<br>

Point 3 the businesses are doing something illegal by banning him. Nope they can ban anyone at anytime for any reason so long as they aren't banning a person for the reason of belonging to a protected class. Again people bring this up as eroding others' rights. Nope businesses/private property owners have been allowed to do this for ages. Why shouldn't they be able to? Sure it should be a decent reason, hence the reason we have protected classes and why it is illegal to discriminate against people simply for belonging to one of them. That doesn't mean, other than the existing laws with protected class discimination, that the owner can't ban a person for no good reason. To the bussiness/property owner maybe they have in their eyes a good reason.<br>

Especially in this case they had a VERY good reason. They had numerous complaints from patrons regarding the person in question and their behavior. Employees and owners of the businesses have had altercations with the person in question several times in the past. Seems like a pretty good reason to ban someone.<br>

You've been a royal jerk to me, my employees and have been unnerving my customers. Don't come in to my store or I'll have you arrested for tresspassing on my property. You've been warned.<br>

How the heck is there anything objectionable in that paragraph? I have a royal jerk of a neighbor up the street and I've told him to never step foot on my property or I'll call the police for tresspassing. Am I wrong in this? I mean I am banning him from my property for being a jerk who I don't like (and none of the neighbors like). Aparently I am erroding his rights.</p>

[orcama60]

<p>This is ridiculous. If you are in the street, it is public, it does belong to all of us not to anyone in particular. Even if you are into a mall, where Ritz Camera is or any other camera store ( it could be any : JCPenney, Sears, etc. ), you have the right, if you buy a camera, to test it before you pay. How are you going to test it if you do not shoot with it at the place where you are buying it from ? So if it is legal to sell cameras into a mall, then it is legal to shoot with it into the mall as well. If it is legal to do this inside the mall, then why should be illegal to be outside a mall in the street shooting whatever you want? It does not make any sense at all !! I do understand that some people do not want to be photographed, but that is another case. If you are outside, taking a picture of a building, some people are going to be inside the picture or we should ask the local city government to close the block for us whenever we want to take a picture in some public places? So where in the hell can we take pictures then? So, I do support whatever Photo Gorilla does to defend himself and even more, he should find a lawyer and make out of his case, a big issue and even get compensation for being punished without any reason.</p>

[orcama60]

<p>So I forgot to mention that there are millions of people with cameras shooting wherever they want and whoever they want. Do you know who those millions are? Everyone of us using a cell phone !! Get it !! Everybody with a cell phone is capable to shoot pictures so what is the f... difference ? Is every owner of a store or restaurant going to complaint and call the police anytime that one of us is shooting a picture with our cells ? How many people I've seen taking pictures with their cells and they are not being punished as we are ? Tell me, is there any difference between a 5 megapixel camera cell than a Nikon D50, D80, etc ? Next time somebody approach me to tell me to stop shooting pictures with my camera, I swear that I will return it to my camera bag and I will continue shooting with my cell. I wonder what will they do when this happen. Are they going to call the police and complaint ? This is extremely ridiculous and out of the question !! If shooting with a camera in a public place is illegal, then it should be illegal taking a picture with a cell phone as well, don't you think so? </p>

[hugh_j.]

<blockquote>

<p>So if it is legal to sell cameras into a mall, then it is legal to shoot with it into the mall as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong. It has nothing to do with legalities, at least here in the United States. In your scenario, the shop owner has the right to permit you to test out the camera before you buy it. That same shop owner has the right to ask you not to take pictures in his store, and to have you removed by security if you do not comply. Now, that is a ridiculous scenario since you'll probably not buy the camera if something like that happens. But it's within the shop owner's rights to do it. As for what is "legal" in a mall, a mall is publicly accessible private property. The mall's owner or representatives of the owner may create rules that you must abide by if you are to remain welcome there. If you do not comply, they have the right to ask you to leave, and call security to remove you if you refuse. If you are made unwelcome and you still return, you may be cited or arrested for trespassing.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Easy, Maurice. You're really not following the actual issues in play here. Please read the underlying article(s), and sample at least 10% of the comments above. This has nothing to do with the "illegality" of shooting anywhere. This has only to do with a property owner being able to tell a problematic person to stay away from their property. Just like you can tell someone to stay off of your own property.<br /><br />To address your other point: it's up to the Ritz store in the mall if they'd like to allow photography in their store. It's up to the property management of the entire mall if they'd like to allow photography on their property at all, or allow each of their tenant stores to make their own decisions about that. It's private property, and private arrangements between those businesses. None of which has anything to do with shooting on a public street, and the photographer in Vermont hasn't been stopped from shooting on public property. He's just not welcome <em>in</em> the businesses that didn't like his conduct and the impact it was having on them and their customers. This has nothing to do with what he can do on <em>public</em> property, and nobody has told him otherwise.</p>

[hugh_j.]

<blockquote>

<p>Where do we draw the line? Can we refuse to photograph a gay marriage?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Sometimes, the line is drawn by the courts.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/features/pdn-online/e3i7d41666c039b61afd8e22025e08c07a8">Photographer Loses Bid to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Jobs</a></p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Matt:<br>

Other then clubs and adult entertainment, please provide me with a list of businesses that prohibit children, I am over sixty years and I have never seen such a sign, have read where apartments were sued and lost for having such restrictions.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>I could also point out that one can be a reasonable person and a supporter of individual rights without believing that anybody has the right to photograph a person in public who has stated they don't want to be photographed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can I ask the buildings to turn off their video camera that video tape the sidewalk, public area? May I ask the police to turn off their cameras? Why is it that the paparazzi can just keep on taking photos?</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Manuel:<br /><br />I was at a commercial shooting range the other day: No children allowed.<br /><br />Last week, I was at a lumber yard: No children allowed.<br /><br />Casinos? No children allowed.<br /><br />I know of a dog training facility: No children allowed.<br /><br />Certain medical practices, clinics, etc: No children allowed.<br /><br />There are gyms and spas with No Children policies. There are business trade shows and exhibits of all sorts that don't allow kids, either. Why? Because the people who own the property wish to provide a No Kids atmosphere <em>for their customers.</em><br /><br />I find it curious (or perhaps not, actually) that you're focusing on such a thing, Manuel. Your entire line of discussion in this thread seems oddly divorced from the practical, day-to-day realities of operating a business. Of course most people have never run a business, but they can at least understand why a private company that, for example, rehabilitates aggressive dogs or teaches self defense with real firearms would want to limit their liability, and control who they'll allow on their property. To say nothing of reserving the right to throw anyone <em>off</em> of their property because of <em>that person's behavior</em> or their sense that a person's behavior <em>will</em> simply be too risky or disruptive.<br /><br />I know that you don't want property owners to be able to retain such personal rights, but there's a reason that reasonable people all over the country differ with you, and always have, even when they were writing the Constitution under which we operate.</p>

[andylynn]

<blockquote>

<p>Can I ask the buildings to turn off their video camera that video tape the sidewalk, public area? May I ask the police to turn off their cameras? Why is it that the paparazzi can just keep on taking photos?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A reasonable person could agree with your position on all of these points. But that's beside the point, which is that reasonable people can disagree about the application of individual rights without one of them being a fascist, which is something that many people don't seem to understand.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Practical way of doing things is to keep as many people happy they are all potential customers, I think some people messed up here. I have gone to shooting ranges and taken my children, in fact I have seen children there practicing, maybe Texas is different. I have been to quite a few lumber yards and have never seen "no children" allowed, although I could see that they may want to limit the number of people at the yard. Matt, I think that if the people from Church Street had realized what this would bring such a reaction they may have done things a little differently. I am not anti business, I have had a business before, I have worked at many different places. I have to admit that I have not been to a health spa in many a year as I do most of my exercise at home or on the trail.<br>

Matt, this is not the only place where this particular discussion is taking place and it seems that businesses would try to prevent this type of thing from happening. It is not good for business. I predict that if the photographer does the decide to go to court that he will win.<br>

In fact the sooner this forum ends the better it is for the businesses there on Church Street, but I don't mind doing my part to keep it going, as that is all I can do from here.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>I doubt they would have. If you read the article (which it seems unlikely you read the whole thing) or many people's comments, they banned the individual because of<br>

1) Numerous customer complaints<br>

2) Beligerant attitude toward employees when they employees have questioned the photographer or asked him to please not act so creepy (lets not forget beligerant toward customers who have questioned him as well)<br>

3) Beligerant attitude towards store owners/managers when doing #2 above</p>

<p>So that to me sounds like it is probably pretty good for business. I highly doubt he would win in court. The business in question would likely have little trouble producing employees and possibly even customers who could attest to the negative impact this person was/is having on the business. Pretty much no resonable judge or jury would have any issue in convicting him of a tresspassing charge in light of the fact that he had been served notice of his ban, what actions would be taken should he choose to ignore his ban and that there was violation of law in his being banned from the premise (not banned because he was a member of a protected class, and for that matter they'd probably see some pretty good cause for him being banned, not a capricious thing at all).</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>Manuel, I am with Matt here. I've seen no children prohibitions many places. Mostly no children under a certain age who are unaccompanied by an adult. However, I have seen bars ban children. Liquor stores on an occasion or two (not simply unnacompanied minors, but no one under 21 allowed, period). Hospitals do it all the time. Heck when my wife gives birth in the next couple of weeks my son is the only child under 18 allowed to visit. No other family members or friends under 18 can visit, only siblings of the child being born may visit.<br>

I see stroller bans everywhere at businesses. Clothing regulations. Etc.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<blockquote>

<p>Practical way of doing things is to keep as many people happy they are all potential customers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. And for many businesses, the math is simple: keep a long list of regular customers happy by keeping one obnoxious guy out of their faces. That can be the bible-thumping proselytizer who shouts at them while they're trying to buy coffee, or anyone else that the business owner decides is bad news on their property. You seem to be shifting away, now, from whether a shopkeeper has the <em>right</em> to keep someone off of their property, and over to whether or not they've made a good <em>public relations decision</em> in doing so. That is a completely different conversation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I predict that if the photographer does the decide to go to court that he will win.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What will he win? Are you talking about a defamation lawsuit? Or a case testing the constitutionality (state? federal?) of several property owners mutually agreeing to abide by each other's no-trespass notices? He can't win back the right to shoot in public, because he's never lost it. He's not likely to overturn the constitutional coverage that allows property owners to say, "That guy's not allowed on my property." So I'm curious about what you think he'll win, actually, and if you're thinking through the ramifications.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I like said the longer it goes, the worse for the businesses, He wins attorney fees, he wins the right to enter the businesses, not sure why he would want to go there. When I said children I was thinking parents with children as that is what I had on my post, not just children by themselves. At ICU units they do prohibit children under certain ages. <br>

I have read the posts here, the story in the paper and other blogs, from what I can tell it was the employees of the business that were mostly complaining not necessarily the customers. It was an employee that was outside smoking a cigarette within 25 feet of the entrance to a business (looks like it from the photo) which is prohibited by law in some places. I hate the smell of cigarettes. Do they have such a law there, smoking near an entrance? Maybe she is in the habit of throwing the butts on the ground, littering? I find that creepy and offensive, I hate littering. Who knows why she asked him to delete the image, she was just a silhouette.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Smoking near the entrance... children in ICUs... merits of the photo... what a random bunch of things that have no relation to what's being discussed. If the employee's cigarettes smell bad, that doesn't waive the owner's property rights.</p>

<p>How exactly would this end up in court? He'd need to sue to enjoin the businesses and city against enforcing the trespass order, for which he'd need a cause of action, and that would be what exactly?</p>

[photogorilla]

<blockquote>

<p>So, I do support whatever Photo Gorilla does</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uh, thanks, but this thread isn't about me, nor is the situation that is referenced here.<br>

I don't know that I would be able to read everything posted here if I was just coming in to the discussion, but a reasonable sampling should get you caught up to speed relatively quickly.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>Smoking near the entrance... children in ICUs... merits of the photo... what a random bunch of things that have no relation to what's being discussed. If the employee's cigarettes smell bad, that doesn't waive the owner's property rights.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reasons why the employee may want the photo deleted, I forget that I have to connect the dots. The employee may have wanted them deleted because she may have violating the law or a company policy. <br>

What are you discussing? I am supporting the right of the photographer to take photos as allowed by law, and against absolute right of private property owners to bar from entering who ever they please. The reason why I have such strong feeling is because that is the rationale that was used to keep Blacks, Mexicans, and others from entering "Private Places" like restaurants, and other places of business. But the churches did it also, we had them here, Mexicans go here, Whites go here. Yes, I have strong feeling about such absolute property rights, in fact a little trip to the civil war and you will find that the South objected to the taking of property “slaves” without compensation. Slaves were worth a lot of money to the owners. Yes, I have strong feeling about it and I am not ashamed about my strong feelings.</p>

 

[photogorilla]

<blockquote>

<p>This has nothing to do with how the photographer acted, whether it was appropriate or not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, it has everything to do with it. His behavior is the sole reason for having him banned from the property.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It has every thing to do with where do we draw the line on business people to bar someone. If the right of business owners is absolute why do they even need a reason to bar one individual or a group of individuals?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1) Their rights are not absolute, no one's rights are absolute.<br>

2) They don't need a reason to bar anyone, but as has been put forth previously, it would be a poor business decision to do so.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>2) They don't need a reason to bar anyone, but as has been put forth previously, it would be a poor business decision to do so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree, and they did bar some one and I think they are none the better for it. In fact at this point in time I would not be surprised that they also are having second thoughts about their decision.</p>

[jennifercatron]

<p>Well because this thread is so long, Im not sure anyone has brought up this issue, but anyone who publishes pictures of other people without having the necessary documentation of a release is the one at risk for the law suit. I used to shoot this type of stuff all the time, and it only took me two months to realize, that I needed releases from the homeless guys even in order for the prints to be published. This actually opened up a whole new world for me and those I photographed. I became known around the city and in several instances these same people actually saved my life out there as I was photographing. It's funny what doing the right thing gets you..... even when you think it's a hindrance at the time.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>If the right of business owners is absolute why do they even need a reason to bar one individual or a group of individuals?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They don't need a reason.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could I bar all white males from a store, they are not a protected class?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is a protected class because its a class based on race. Its not based on some races and not others. If you would like to learn what protected classes exist, there is plenty of information available online. Photographers are not among them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The photog in question has been convicted and punished by the police, all without any prior court process at all. All without the process that is "due" prior to conviction and imposition of punishment by the state.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The government has not punished anyone or convicted anyone. All that took place is that they communicated with someone. If this statement above were true, someone could not seek police help to have an unwanted guest in their home leave. First, the police would be powerless to say anything because the homeowner would have to go to court, have the unwanted guest served with notice (probably by a [gasp!] government official) and wait for the matter to be docketed which may be weeks later. Only after this hearing with notice, could the police then even just say, "the homeowner told you to leave so now you are on notice that by staying, you will be trespassing." This whole delivering a communication from someone amounting to violating due process is absurd fantasy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you have the right, if you buy a camera, to test it before you pay.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. You don't. Even if one did, it doesn't amount to a right to be on private property.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is every owner of a store or restaurant going to complaint and call the police anytime that one of</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whether they would or not is irrelevant to the validity of the situation here.<br>

nothing to do with the situation here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>!! If shooting with a camera in a public place is illegal, then it should be illegal taking a picture with a cell phone as well, don't you think so?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its not illegal and no one claimed it was. Again, these comments erroneous and even if they were correct, they would still be irrelevant to the story here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can I ask the buildings to turn off their video camera that video tape the sidewalk, public area? May I ask the police to turn off their cameras? Why is it that the paparazzi can just keep on taking photos?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The photographer has all the same rights to photograph as all these people or organizations above. You are discussing things that are not involved with this situation.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, some here are having grave difficulty even knowing what the topic they are discussing even is.</p>