C’mon...you have a reasonable right to photograph in a public space. Common sense dictates that you don’t videotape someone who is in a stretcher and being helped medically. Whether it is illegal, I’m sure lawyers have a field day. But what if it was you, your family, that whiny prick. It’s morally reprehensible.
Agreed. Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it. Plus, I can’t think of a real good reason why anyone would feel the need to do this.
Oh piss off.
I agree with you but I’m sure some righteous turd will accuse you of trying to overturn the constitution. I’d ignore them if they did. Doubtful you’ll change such a mindset.
Do you feel as strongly about the feelings of the family of a jihadi filmed being ripped to shreds by a chopper’s forward guns and it being uploaded to youtube?
“C’mon...you have a reasonable right to photograph in a public space. Common sense dictates that you don’t videotape someone who is in a stretcher and being helped medically.”
First of all, you have an absolute right to photograph in a public place. There is no expectation of privacy in public places, therefore, you cannot violate anyone’s privacy in a public place.
Secondly, public officials (including cops and other public servants) have no expectation of privacy while performing their jobs. They all seem to be overly sensitive to this for one reason: the Rodney King beating video.
So to recap: the man who was being treated in a public place had no right to privacy. The cops and paramedics had no right to privacy. The cop who confronted the photographer thought he was protecting the victim’s right to privacy when he had none at all. In short, the cop and paramedic citing HIPPA had no idea what they were talking about and had no right to interfere with someone taking pictures of the scene. Now, you may think what he was shooting was tasteless, but that’s why we have a first amendment. The man taking the photos was no different than any photojournalist in that situation, and should have been accorded the same deferential treatment under the first amendment.
I disagree. I recently had a chance to flip through the photos of a local freelance news photographer who was active in the late 40s and early 50s in our city.
I saw amazing photos that documented those decades. And i was struck by a thought. Almost all of them would be difficult to impossible to take today. It was astounding how close he was to many of the incidents. Arrests, accidents, and incidents of every description. There was one of a cop laying in the street being given first aid after he wrecked a motorcycle. Ever think those guys photographed in soup lines during the great depression were particularly happy at that moment?
The value of some photos often won’t be appreciated for decades. They don’t all have to be published widely of course, but taking them is fine.
And two final thoughts. If Oswald was shot today, there would not be a single photo of it. We would get a press release and be left to wonder. Photo restriction are for the old USSR, not America.
Last, a victim of an accident can use often those photos to help prove who was there, what happened, what the road signs did or didn’t say at the time, etc. This can be extremely iseful later when dealing with insurance companies and city agencies who say “prove it”.
Cameras good,,, people who supress photography, bad.
Lighten up, Frances. News is news.