I see you failed to acknowledge my larger point about the morality and ethics of it and omitted that comment entirely. Just because ACLU lawyers solidified its legality doesn’t mean it’s morally acceptable. I also don’t think this Green urchin is a “photojournalist”. Lastly, there are many instances where names and pictures are withheld in reporting as a matter of decency...think rape victims. I think the officer used great restraint.
“I see you failed to acknowledge my larger point about the morality and ethics of it and omitted that comment entirely.”
Addressed it here far more succinctly, it would seem, than you were capable of understanding:
“Now, you may think what he was shooting was tasteless, but that’s why we have a first amendment.”
There was nothing immoral in the act of photographing the scene itself. Nothing. People shoot stills and video of dramatic scenes like this and worse every day. It’s a fact of life. Deal with it.
” I also don’t think this Green urchin is a “photojournalist”.
So then you share Dick Durbin’s view that only people with press credential’s are protected by the first amendment??? Nice to know you think the constitution doesn’t apply to every citizen with a camera, computer, and a voice.
“Lastly, there are many instances where names and pictures are withheld in reporting as a matter of decency...think rape victims.”
This was not such a scene. Perhaps your inability to understand the difference is what’s really at the heart of the matter here.