The photographer WAS NOT HARASSED!

[walter_strong5]

<p>You said it better than I Mr. Watson.</p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>This paragraph from Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy In America, 1835, is particularly germain to this discussion.<br>

"When thus having successively taken each member of the community into its powerful grasp, and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. <strong>It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, </strong>minute and uniform, through with the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd. <strong>The will of man is not shattered but softened, bent and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting.</strong> Such a power does not destroy but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupifies a people, <strong>'till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrial animals, of which government is the shepherd. </strong>I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet and gentle kind which I have just described <strong>might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom </strong>and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people."<br>

This is not paranoia, it is a description of what has happened to this country. </p>

 

[jgalyon]

<p>Walter, I'm up early and was ready to respond to your comments, but once again, I can't seem to be able to copy & paste. Maybe it will work later. I'll check back tonight. Too much typing...not enough energy :)</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>"p.s - I'd love to sit back and listen to some true life accounts of how you guys have stood up against "the man". Any jail time between the two of you for defending your constitutional rights? Or...is all this talk just theoretical stuff that hasn't yet been fleshed out in real life?"</p>

<p>If you're referring to me, I don't recall recommending any such action. People with guns (and badges) who imagine themselves the hero are dangerous to confront. As I am not a photojournalist, I remain polite and cooperative. I may not like it, I may feel it is a sad comment on the state of the country (or the world) post 9/11, but it is the way things are.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Didn't volume I of <em>Democracy in America</em> spend a good deal of time reciting long lists of obscure rules and laws communities and states had made for their citizens? I seem to remember de Tocqueville citing a law that forbade the wearing of long hair in Connecticut. There was jail time for that one. Can't ride your horse on Sunday without paying a fine, that sort of thing.</p>

<p>Haven't many of those local and state laws since been organized into being a little more sensible in scope? I'm not so sure that it'd be applicable today. It'd be kind of like listing lots and lots of conflicting city ordinances (this city allows ____, but that city doesn't) and then trying to state that Americans have no freedoms.</p>

<p>I think you made a good point above, but isn't <em>Democracy in America, </em>like out of context quotations of Thomas Jefferson, really easy to use to justify some causes? What about a different source?</p>

<p>Volume II has some high-fallutin' talk in it about the abstract concept of freedom, but I seem to remember Volume I being rather boring lists of descriptions. You can pull a justification for just about anything out of Volume II.</p>

<p>If you wanna <em>Fight for your right to par-tay</em>, Alexis de Tocqueville's <em>Democracy in America Volume II</em> can help you out!</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I'm so blown away by Lex's response I haven't bothered to read through the rest.</p>

<p>Never mind.</p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>Well John, I guess if I haven't spent any time in jail over this issue then my opinion is without merit. As for my quote of de Tocquiville, if you don't see how it applies to 21st. century America then I'm think'n you must live in a cave.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Walter, First of all...Peace/Out is a way of saying goodbye...nothing was said to indicate it's the motto of an entire generation of young Americans. Must you try to take anything and everything someone says, and somehow weave it into the thread of your ideology? That's pretty lame and uncalled for. </p>

<p>I still can't copy & paste...but referrring to waite watson's comments: I agree! I don't have the time or inclination to addess every point that's been made since I wrote last...so I'm going to generally direct my comments toward my upcoming trip to the neighborhood nuclear plant.</p>

<p>If in my conversation with the TVA rep, Mr. Johnson...I had been told that in order to take photographs of the plant that I would have to set an appointment, that I would have to be accompanied by a TVA representative, that I would be required to present I.D. and to answer questions about the purpose of taking these photographs...that would be a different issue than the one we're actually discussing. The facts are these:</p>

<ul>

<li>I didn't call Mr.Johnson because I was required to. I made the call in order to find out if taking the photographs was legal, and to find out any security restrictions that TVA has in place and how they might affect my efforts to photograph the plant.</li>

<li>I was immediately told that taking the photographs was legal. </li>

<li>Mr. Johnson said nothing to attempt to dissuade me from taking the photographs...instead he welcomed me to take them.</li>

<li>His offer to accompany me to the plant was just that...an offer, not a requirement. In the end, he left it entirely up to me as to whether I wanted him to got to the plant with me...or go alone. </li>

<li>He was very upfront in saying that if I went alone there was a <strong>possibility</strong> that security guards <strong>might </strong>ask to see identification and that they <strong>might</strong> ask the nature/purpose of my taking the photographs. He did not say that these security measures were a <strong>requirement. </strong></li>

<li>Mr.Johnson said or did nothing that even remotely indicated he had any intent of attemting to infringe on my legal rights. To the contrary, he seemed to want to assist me in my little project. </li>

</ul>

<p>If I go to the plant accompanied by Mr.Johnson, it will be because I chose to...not because I am required or forced to. If I submit to a request to show identification and answer the question of why I'm photographing the plant...it will be because I choose to...not because I'm required or forced to do so. I'll say it one last time...whether a TVA rep accompanies me to the site or not...whether I am asked to show I.D. or not...asked the purpose of my photographs or not...I will have had not a single one of my rights taken from.me...nor will I have given a right away, or compromised a right. I don't find these security measures to be unreasonable, and they're certainly legal. Should I feel at any point that TVA has overstepped it's authority and has attempted to infringe on my legal rights...they'll have a legal problem on their hands.</p>

<p>Anticipating that you'll argue that I'm choosing to "give my rights away"and that I'm "compromising"...I don't agree. Just as I have the legal right to take the photographs, the plant's security guards have the right to impliment security meaures. We have the right to fly commercially, but the idea is that you will not be allowed to fly without first going through security. Which makes me wonder, Walter. Would you/do you refuse to submit to security measures when/if you fly? Not trying to start a religious argument...there's a scripture that states, "All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient". As it applies to this situation, I could go unannounced to the plant and begin taking pictures in the middle of the night . I feel with a certainty that within seconds I would be surrounded by security forces. While I would be perfectly within my legal rights to do so...why the hell would I want to? Just because I can? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I do wish I could brag about spending a few nights in jail because I refused to budge one fraction of an inch away from my constitutional rights. Maybe that'll happen in the few years I've left on the planet</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't believe a word of that. If you meant it, you'd have already found a way to make your <strong>"wish"... </strong>a reality. There's just too many opportunities out there for someone who claims they'd like to be jailed...to not have actually <em>been jailed.</em> </p>

<p>Suggestion:Why don't you find a good nuclear plant, dress up in camo, take your camera...and go take some pictures at 3 a.m...then, when security arrives...refuse to answer questions or present identification. If you want to protest your rights peacefully (but then you said peace wasn't the objective...you could stage a sit-in! You might not actually be jailed, but at least, you're likely to be questioned...maybe even a full-fledged interrogation! Interrogation...the gateway drug to incarceration. </p>

<p> Walter, I think you love to <em>talk</em> about such exploits in internet forums, but if your beliefs went beyond mere talk, considering the furor the subject seems to bring out in you...you'd have at least had an arrest or two for some sit-in you particicpated in. For all your strong words, Walter...what have you actually done to protect your/our constitutional rights? I think that making people aware of your concerns is definitely one way to spread the warning...but since you savor the idea of being jailed, it sounds like you'd like to do something more than just talk. Somehow I can't see you actually doing 30 years of jail time like Mandela...just talking about how you'd like to. All talk...no action.</p>

 

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p>Well John, I suppose that if I hadn't spent any time in jail over this issue then my opinion is without merit.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Nice try, Walter. (I read your comment after my last post.) I don't believe that much of what you have to say has merit, but I don't base that belief in the fact that you haven't served jail time. But being that you've expressed this desire you have to serve jail time for protecting your rights...then I'd think that getting yourself arrested would be the logical , natural progression of things. Most of the men and women who went on to become great men and women for their contributions to the promotion of freedom, civil rights, social change served a day or two...or a few decades in jail for their efforts. Why don't you join them, Walter? You say it's your wish!</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Tim, you wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm so blown away by Lex's response I haven't bothered to read through the rest.<br>

Never mind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would you mind explaining what you meant? Not sure I understand. thanks...</p>

 

[jgalyon]

<p>Sorry, accidental double-post.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Hey, here is an interesting post script. In this month's Hammacher Schlemmer catalog, on page 8, there is an ad for a 1.3MP video camera shaped like a ball point pen. There is a mic too. Not sure how good the pictures are, but it seems to me that it's nicely inconspicuous. Of course a remote control for a cellphone camera would be even more inconspicuous assuming you could arrange for it to be able to take pictures from the case at your belt (maybe a strategic hole cut in the case?).</p>

<p>There's an interesting device on the facing page too -- a driving activity reporter that could keep track of everywhere you went with the car for later review. Just what the well dressed spy is wearing this year.</p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>Play it any way you choose John, but don't think for one second you're making life easier for any other photographers with your submissive "gee I hope I don't step on anybody's toes" way of doing things. If enough photographers handle things like you it won't be that many years before we're EXPECTED to ask permission or at least give notice before photographing anything that could possibly be branded "sensitive". </p>

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p>Play it any way you choose John, but don't think for one second you're making life easier for any other photographers with your submissive "gee I hope I don't step on anybody's toes" way of doing things.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Walter, As I would have expected...once again, you only heard what you wanted to hear. If my one small act of defiance in Charleston is the only one I'm ever able to "brag" about (really nothing to brag about...but since you put such importance on bragging...) I suspect that one time will exceed the entire number of times that you'll ever have that experience.</p>

<p>When you're able to give me an account of your first personal experience in civil disobedience, then let's talk, Walter. Until then, all I hear is someone who talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk...yet somehow feels he is qualified to preach to others about how they should conduct their affairs. You don't seem to have the slightest inclination to actually do "the dirty work"...you just want to berate others who don't live up to your standards...standards you don't actually live by...just talk about. There's a big difference in someone who talks about what they'd to in the midst of battle...and a soldier who actually fights on the front line. Until you've actually fought the war, you're just a guy standingn on the sidelines of the battle wearing a uniform and medals that he hasn't earned.</p>

<p>One of the wonderful things that I enjoy about living in this country is that I don't have to do things <strong>your way</strong>, Walter. You can say that I'm kowtowing, imply that I'm a coward, refer to everyone that disagree with you as "sheeple", etc., etc. - but you know what Walter? I don't have to bow to your expectations. I'm a free man ...living in a free country, and as much as I'm sure it pains you...I make my own choices, not you...</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>At the risk of inserting myself into the middle of a brawl (yikes!), I think there's room for people who follow the rules, so long as there are enough people brave enough to engage in civil disobedience. Imagine being a security company trying to enforce "no photography" rules in some train station. Let's say 95% of the people obey the sign and don't take pictures. Then there's that 5% that's going to snap away. Maybe half of those just weren't aware and will put away their cameras when asked. Then you have those remaining people who are going to insist that the station is public property and that they have a right to take pictures if they want -- that the security guard should (in polite terms) shove it. That 2.5% of the public can occupy 95% of the security guard's time. So the employer of the security company must make the decision whether it's really that important to keep 2.5% of the public from snapping pics that don't really matter anyway, or whether 95% of their security company's time could be better spent doing something else.</p>

<p>I personally walk a middle road, being a semi-buddhist sort of person. I think it's really important to occupy as much of that security guard's time as possible, before complying and putting away my camera. I don't think I'd ever be willing to go to jail over a photograph, because I'm not that brave a person. However, I think it's important for many of us (not necessarily all of us) to make it difficult and labor-intensive to enforce an unjust rule or law. Remember that the impact of wide-scale civil disobedience is to wear the government down -- to strain its resources to the point that it becomes far more practical to abandon an oppressive regulation than to enforce it. (Think of pot in California!)</p>

<p>What does my form of resistance look like? I'll ask permission of individuals (out of common Southern good manners), but not of governments and security personnel. If approached, I'm friendly, and the guard usually goes away. However, if the guard persists in imposing restrictions on me, I make it a point to take up way too much of his or her time and ask way too many probing questions. I discuss the Constitutionality of the rule or regulation. I ultimately comply, but I complain about it. I write letters to those in charge and occupy their time too. I write letters to the editor about it. I post on PN. I tell everyone who will listen, so long as the problem still exists. And do I ever learn to comply? No. I'm not that smart. The security guards will have to remind me of their regulations quite frequently, because my memory isn't so good, and I have a hard time understanding the logic of these regulations (reconciling them with what I think I understand of our Constitution) in this country that boasts of being the very model of freedom to the rest of the world. I admit this tends to wear me down too, but I'm more tenacious than most people.</p>

<p>This is all to say that you can resist without going to jail over it. Not everyone needs to resist these sorts of rules and regulations, but clearly some people should. I try to do my part, small though it may be.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Sarah, First of all...let me apologize. I forgot to respond to your first post. As for a brawl (lol), I'm sure it sounds like just that...a brawl, but for my part, I'd prefer to think of it as nothing more than a strong difference of opinion. ;)</p>

<p>I would hope that you, Walter(especially Walter), and anyone else who might read my suggestion that Walter go out and get himself jailed was not necessarily a literal one. The point was/is...that it's a little difficult to listen to someone call people names (sheeple), suggest that they are "kowtowing", and clearly infer that they are cowards if they don't behave in a manner that promotes confrontation and perhaps investigation and/or incarceration...when one could just as easily accomplish their objective without being "in the face of the man"...and without giving away their rights in the least.</p>

<p>I think that you have to look at things on a case by case basis, and that each individual has to handle things his/her own way. Walter seems to think that I'm giving away my rights by the way in which I chose to handle the whole "nuclear plant" matter, and assuming for a moment that everything he's said to me would apply to you as well...he'd say the same of you, if he were to read the statement below.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, if the guard persists in imposing restrictions on me, I make it a point to take up way too much of his or her time and ask way too many probing questions. I discuss the Constitutionality of the rule or regulation. <strong>I ultimately comply,</strong> but I complain about it. I write letters to those in charge and occupy their time too. I write letters to the editor about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I understand Walter's way of thinking, the fact that in the end... you complied, means that like me, you're just another "sheeple".</p>

<p>I totally agree with you. You don't have to go to jail in order to resist. But since Walter stated it was his "wish"...and it sounds as though he would consider that anything less than being willing to go to jail as a means of resisting would be the path of a coward...</p>

<p>While Walter and I may be far apart on this issue...I respect him for not being apathetic. Those who don't care about such matters are for me...the sheeple.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>John, the never mind part was an edit to something I had second thoughts about posting. Now I can't remember what I said that made me want to edit it. Some of the advantages of turning 50.</p>

<p>I just thought Lex pretty much said all that was needed to be said on this subject. And as you can see you've received far more thorough and thoughtful responses than what I could come up with.</p>

<p>Walter has a good point about being too apologetic for something that is a right and freedom. This subject also delineates between those photographers who see the value and creative potential in using the spontaneity of the moment in taking that defining shot that would've and might've been lost if first they had to get permission.</p>

<p>Someone just wanting to shoot snap shots probably wouldn't have known or appreciated this aspect of photography so getting permission first wouldn't have made much of a difference in what was captured anyway.</p>

<p>People who create images do so from the gut, not from some sense of social propriety. However, I never understood the value of creating an image that involved a lot of prep work and expense requiring a permit and/or seeking permission by an authority. I've never been all that impressed by images created that way but there's a lot of pro's that get paid big money for doing so.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Tim, Thanks for your response. I've just spent a long day doing yardwork in the hot sun...and I'm just too tired to write tonight, but promise to do so over the weekend. Hope you and Walter, Sarah and all that offered their perspectives have a great Easter weekend!</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I come away from this agreeing on all sides, really. Personally, I find myself most aligned with Sarah and her line of thinking. I recently posted on an issue of harassment and came away from it with mixed feelings about how I (we) handled the situation. There is a place for diplomacy and I would not criticize you for how you approached this situation, John. I don't mind the conflict, I (like Sarah and Walter) think that it's important for at least some of us to stand up every now and then to remind those authorities (or elephants) that we're still here and that some of us value our freedoms enough to engage in debate and even conflict.</p>

<p>I don't advocate violence or even disrespectful behavior but I tend to agree with the adage that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. There is a way to be spontaneous and civil. It won't always work but you have to try.</p>

<p>Oddly enough, the refinery that my girlfriend and I were photographing last month... It blew up last night. The guard documented her license plate number while we were there photographing but I believe they've already determined that the explosion was caused by a malfunction and not anything criminal or subversive.</p>

[jay_66]

<p>I know I'm late to this thread, but after going through Vietnam with UPI, there is just NO WAY that I'm going to ask anybody for permission to take photographs that I have the legal right to do so. I will not ask some rent a cop permission to exercise my constitutional rights. If they want to get in my face, I know how to get in theirs. I'm retired but still have press credentials, and standing at 6-foot-6, not many people give me grief.</p>

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p>I come away from this agreeing on all sides, really.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, what you just said is representative of what I spoke of concerning a "balanced" perspective...something Walter totally rejected. I just don't buy into the idea that there's a "one size fits all" recipe for handling such situations...and apparently you don't either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is a place for diplomacy and I would not criticize you for how you approached this situation, John.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Jeff. I don't want to appear as though I'm quibbling over semantics (I assure you I'm not), but I would characterize my approach to the nuclear plant deal as "common sense" approach, not a "diplomatic" approach...at least in the sense that we often think of compromise as being part of any diplomatic solution to issues in which people have disagreement, and have reached an impasse in resolving the disagreement. I made no compromise. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I don't mind the conflict, I (like Sarah and Walter) think that it's important for at least some of us to stand up every now and then...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you read back through this thread I assure you that there's not a single indication that Walter's stand on this matter reflects what you just said. That is...Walter doesn't see this as a <strong>"some of us..", "every now and then..." </strong>issue. Everything Walter said indicates that he believes <strong>all of us</strong>, <strong>in every case </strong>should react in the same manner...which is to in essence, use a "bull in a china shop" approach. Screw diplomacy, tact, respect, common decency, and common sense (good judgment). He went so far as to admit that he "wishes" for the opportunity to be jailed for defending his rights. Unless you're just an angry human being, looking to pick a fight just because you can...why would this ever be your "wish"? Should we not "wish" for a more reasonable, more civil way of resolving this issue whenever possible...and let confrontation and being arrested and jailed be a last resort? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Balance" and "compromise" and "gentlemen's agreements" are not what we look for when it comes to protecting our constitutional rights. <strong>Nothing less than a hard nosed refusal to retreat one single step </strong>will suffice to accomplish that goal." -<strong>Walter</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>According to that statement, (and many others things he's said) Walter sees you, me, and Sarah as nothing more than "sheeple" There's no room in his world for my diplomacy (<strong>compromise</strong> in Walter's view), Sarah's approach in which she stated... "I discuss the Constitutionality of the rule or regulation. <strong>I ultimately comply,</strong> but I complain about it", or your stance, that you find yourself "agreeing on all sides" (<strong>more compromise</strong>).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I (like Sarah and Walter) think that it's important for at least some of us to stand up every now and then...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm truly curious, and not trying to be confronatational, Jeff...but I must ask a question. In light of the fact that I've mentioned more than once that when harassed by security guards in Charleston, and threatened with being arrested...my response was to challenge these guards to have me arrested...and was prepared to go to jail rather than have my rights trampled on...you failed to include my name along with yours, Walter and Sarah's as one who ...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>think that it's important for at least some of us to stand up every now and then to remind those authorities (or elephants) that we're still here and that some of us value our freedoms enough to engage in debate and even conflict.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah offered an account of standing up for her rights, I offered an account, Walter just spoke of "wishing" he'd have the opportunity in his last few year's on the planet.</p>

<p>I'll end today's diatribe by referring back to a quote from Bob Atkins, taken from your thread, Jeff. I find it to best summarize my thoughts, feelings, and beliefs on the subject.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=14630">Bob Atkins</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Admin" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/admin.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 06, 2010; 02:08 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm no fan of harassment and I think a lot of security guards and cops simply don't know what the law is (of if they do they chose to ignore it). However I guess you have to ask yourself what would happen if they failed to check properly on someone who later did turn out to be up to no good. They really can't just say, "Well a terrorist wouldn't be so stupid as to sneak around at night with a camera, stand there and take pictures so I'll just ignore him". Nor can you simply assume that nobody would blow up a refinery somewhere out in the Styx so there's no need to check on anyone wandering around the perimeter at night.<br>

Bad as things might be for white (or black, hispanic or asian) native English speaking Americans, I'd hate to be a Middle Eastern photographer specializing in photographing refineries at night in the US.<br>

The authorities and their employees have probably been indoctrinated to see a terrorist under every rock, just as there was a communist hiding around every corner in the 1950s. It's not necesarily the individual's fault, it's their training and the attitude of the institutions they work for. <strong>All that being said, we still need to stand up for our rights or they will surely be gradually taken away. There has to be a balance and sometimes the scales get tipped in the wrong direction.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

 

[jgalyon]

<p>p.s. - Jeff, it suddenly hit me that Lex had made a second post, which I'm sure is the one you're referring to...not the 1st post which I mistakenly referred to. Thanks for your thoughtful response to the thread!</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Of course, if the so-called harrassers instead of exercising free speech by talking and asking questions, were to simply walk up and get in "your" face and take pictures of the photographer, their car, their gear, etc., it would be a photographer exercising his or her rights. </p>

<p>It's a guess, but I'd expect more photographers annoy and harrass other people than are "harrassed" by guards, etc. </p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>Ok, that's a less than impressive argument yet I agree with your closing statement.</p>