Welcome to the EU, Bub.
In England and most of her former colonies innocence is presumed. However, as I understand it, in most countries guilt is presumed. Why would they have arrested you if you were not guilty of something?
At least most of the EU countries have approximate economic parity. Not like our trade agreement with Mexico where $2.00/is a great wage and US workers now have to compete for jobs with them. Even as out of the way place as Boone NC is flooded with them. Of course the politicians don't have to worry about it, you have to be a citizen to get their job.
--
Bob W wrote:
Hi,
[...]
My guess is that this ruling will serve as a handle to prevent
stalking excesses (whether it involves celebs, children, former lovers,
whatever; any case were some maniac decides to follow you around with a
camera all day every day) more than some Draconian measure to ban people
from taking each other's photographs. I guess we'll have to see how jurisprudence develops.
It occurred to me this morning that the law is (or may be - I only know what I've read in the paper) double-plus stupid.
According to the article it becomes illegal to publish the photograph without the subject's (or indeed subjects' - there may be other people in the picture) consent.
There is a presumption of innocence, so in any court case the publisher does not have to prove that they _have_ consent. Rather the plaintiff has to prove that the publisher does _not_ have consent.
This means they have to prove a negative.
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
