If it's a public high school stadium it's public property.
Bob Shell wrote:
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
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
