[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marnie wrote:
No, she didn't. I did.
Oops, my mistake. I'm very sorry.
While I admit that indeed *some* police officers are criminals, I still
doubt that represents the majority of them in the area where I live.
I wonder if the minorities, young people, gays, bikers and other frequent
targets of police harrassment have the same opinion you do.
I'm a minority, live in Texas, and frequently go out and photograph. I
photograph high school football games from the bleachers too, and I have
yet to encounter any police harrassment. Now if I went down to the
lower levels and started to take pictures of young women the way this
guy was, then there might be some objections to that I would imagine.
You think maybe they have a different attitude to people who assume
they're doing their job than to people who assume they're all worse than
criminals? Maybe?
If a cop stops me without probable cause then I let him know I'm unhappy about
it. I am not going to kiss his ass while he's violating my civil rights.
The story said "pornographic pictures." I'm going by what's in there.
In any case, I said "if." Meaning, well, IF.
I'm sure the cops said they were pornographic pictures. That was one of their
tricks to justify their abusing the guys rights.
The law does not offer protection of peoples' privacy. There is no such
right guaranteed in any government document.
The constitution does not in itself give any protection from one another
with respect to privacy, those laws are relegated to the individual
states. The constitution does give a certain amount of protection from
our government, wrt. religion, search & seizure, self incrimination,
etc. So a law like the one in Texas, is a law designed to protect
privacy, not a law against photographers. There should be some
expectation of privacy, otherwise people could put cameras in dressing
rooms, bathrooms, etc., or take "up-skirt" pictures, etc. without any
consequences.
Pro-choice justices have apparently managed to find one in the
Constitution.
Confidentiality is indeed guaranteed between a doctor and a patient and also
between a lawyer and a client.
I was speaking about an assumed right to privacy by people who are walking
around in public. The fact is that they have none. This point has been
discussed in other threads. The guy was taking pictures in public. His subjects
had no right to privacy.
Again, I disagree on this point.
I would also prefer not to live in a place where police are a bigger
threat than criminals. That is why I live here.
I think there are people in your town who would disagree with you.
Not me.
Tom Reese
