Two objections:
First of all, calling that photo a "threat to harm others" is bogus.
Secondly, as I pointed out, it's protected by the 1st Amendment. Even
speech I don't agree with; speech that's sick, disagreeable, vile &
disgusting is protected by the 1st Amendment.
What other Constitutional protections do you think we must give up in
the name of civility?
From: Bob Sullivan
John,
I'm with Stan. Why don't we make the world a more civil place?
No more publishing threats to harm others.
It's a sickness our society no longer needs to tolerate.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:50 PM, John Sessoms <[email protected]> wrote:
In the U.S. this would be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Calling her photo a threat is HORSE CRAP!
From: Stan Halpin
As I read it, the problem is not that she took a picture. The problem
is that she posted it on a public forum.
Think about it. Making physical threats against the U.S. President is
going to attract the attention of the Secret Service, making threats
against others is arguably an offense as well. So, say some makes a
serious threat, you then copy and/or photograph that threat and post it.
I don't see how your lack of originality makes you any less culpable.
stan
On Apr 5, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
I'm not sure about Canada, but I would love to get arrested for
photographing something in the U.S. The judgment I would eventually
receive for false arrest would make the proposition quite profitable.
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Igor Roshchin <[email protected]> wrote:
You may want to think what photos you post:
http://hyperallergic.com/68151/artist-arrested-for-instagramming-street-art/
Cheers,
Igor
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
