On Tuesday, October 18, 2005, at 10:46 AM, Gonz wrote:
Umm no. I dont advocate such a thing at all. If our government ever got to that point, it would be time for the second amendment to do its job. There is a fine line between privacy and freedom. The news references are vague, I'll give you that, but I'm not basing my opinion on the law based on them, but rather on how I would expect it to operate. I mean, I havent seen your position except for vague opposition, but how do you feel about people using shoe cameras to take pictures of womens nether areas?
My feeling is that I should be able to photograph anything I can see from a public place without concealing the fact that I am making photographs. So long as I am not trespassing on private property or hiding what I am doing from the subject of said photographs, no one should have any right to interfere with me. I don't know exactly what this Texas photographer was doing, but since the football stadium is presumably on private property, the owners of that property should have the right to place reasonable restrictions on photographers. I see this as no different from photographing a rock concert in a private venue, where the owners of the venue can say "no photography" if they choose. If, however, a photographer could see into the stadium or concert from public property and took photos from there, that is another matter altogether, and no one should have any right to hassle him. The intent of the photos is really completely irrelevant.
Bob
