> Where is your evidence that minorities, young people, gays and bikers > are frequent targets of police harrassment in my part of the country?
Since you cited San Antonio, Texas you can start here: http://www.amnestyusa.org/outfront/stonewalled/abuse.html > Apparently the fact that the cops said so is enough for you to believe > it is not true. No but it isn't enough for me to believe that it is true either. It is also possible that the cops planted evidence in the guys car. They do that you know. > I said, > > On the OTHER hand, if there is a pervert going around taking > pornographic pictures of young girls without their consent, and > collecting sexually explicit information about pizza delivery customers, > and carrying weapons in his vehicle, and furthermore this is happening > in the district in which I, my daughter, my cousins and several friends > live, attend public events and order pizza, I'd appreciate it if there > was a way to stop him. At best he's invading people's privacy; at worst, > he's dangerous. > You didn't say "assumed right to privacy by people who are walking > around in public" and I responded to what you did say. The context of the discussion was whether it was okay to take pictures of people in public. You said the guy was "invading peoples privacy". I disagreed with that. > By the way, the law says if you have sex with a person who does not > consent, that's a violation. Many people do not have a problem with the > law saying that. I have no problem agreeing with the similar principle > that if you take pornographic photographs of a person without that > person's consent, that too is a violation. And THAT is what the law that > you all are complaining about, says. A picture of someone taken in public cannot be pornographic unless the person being photographed is commiting a lewd act. Even then, it depends very much on the viewers definition of pornographic. Tom Reese
