fatbrit

I'm just ignoring your citing until you produce a case whereby the privacy of a citizen was curtailed by another citizen, and this was declared unconstitutional.

RoadWarriorFromLP

You don't like the Ninth Amendment?

Anthony Pellicano just got convicted of wiretapping, and AT&T is getting sued for aiding and abetting him. Privacy violations committed by private citizens are certainly illegal.

pejpm1

Figures I am young? Why, is that a bad thing? Why would that make me any less intelligent or wise than you? To be honest you sound incredibly naive for someone who i presume is older than 25 (my age). You sound like someone who frankly is rather lacking in life experience. Yes, it is possible to have rules but have different degrees of how much you decide to enforce them. A 17 year old in a pub with an adult having a beer with their dinner isnt really likely to cause much harm, are you saying that they should be arrested and the establishment closed down? The effectiveness of the rule lies in the fact that it keeps groups of 17 year olds who are intent on getting drunk from being able to do so. You see? A rule can be for one purpose, but not have to be 100% enforced to make it effective. Your total and utter obedience to 'the rules' is rather scary imo. Rules and common sense must go hand in hand.

Yes, thats the easy answer isnt it tracy?? if you cant think of a response, simply say that you dont believe it! I didnt see it personally, but I cant imagine why the 75 year old guy would lie. Especially since I've been in bars in the US with my dad who is 52, and they asked him for ID. I've been in the bar at chicago airport and seen a guy who must have been 45 who was refused 2 drinks because he didnt bring 2 IDs to the bar, he pointed to his wife who was sitting at the table and the barman still insisted that she bring her ID over. This is the kind of utter stupidity I am talking about.

I'm sure lots of stats do show that young people have drink driving accidents...so how effective are the current laws? Personally in my experience its the older generation who seem to take a relaxed attitude towards drink driving. All my friends and I love drinking, but I've never got in a car drunk and I dont know anyone my age that has. Laws do not prevent kids drinking. Proper respect for alcohol is what young people need to learn. Being told that they will be arrested for drinking is not the proper way forward. I met a guy from Michigan State college a few months back...he lived in a dorm where police were able to walk around. He was sitting in his room reading a physics book and drinking a beer with his door open...the policeman walked past, saw that he was drinking a single bottle of beer (with an empty next to him) and threatened to arrest him and gave him a $50 ticket. He was 20 years old at the time. Is that proper enforcement of the rules? Is that teaching respect for alcohol? No, it was completely ridiculous, but seemed to be in keeping with how completely rigid law enforcement is in this country.

Sometimes my daily business does include drinking. I go out a lot and i socialise. But if you'd bothered to read my post I said that I do not mind if a bar wants to ID people under 30..that includes me.

I object to having to show ID on a train as I dont see why I should. What next? Do I need to apply to the state if I want to travel across the state border? Again, the action of showing ID is not the problem, the principle of it is. Why should I not be able to get on a train and travel somewhere without it being potentially recorded? For someone who enjoys the freedom to bare arms, you seem so willing to give up small freedoms to abide by 'the rules'.

pejpm1

haha, well done tracy, this is the most pathetic post I have ever read on this forum.

JAJ

It would probably need to be repeated in order to constitute stalking, although that might depend on the jurisdiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

And taking one or two photos of a person is certainly not a form of stalking. A ban on taking photographs of persons in public place would be a grossly disproportionate restriction on people's liberty and while you might see that as a price well worth paying for your "privacy" many others would not.

RoadWarriorFromLP

As lovely and photogenic as I would like to think that I am, I can't imagine what is so compelling about me that someone needs to keep and distribute my photo without getting my permission.

If you don't object to a single incident of filming, it's really difficult for you to believe that repeated efforts constitute "stalking." If you believe as a matter of principle that it is OK to film someone for a half hour without asking them, then you have no grounds to claim that daily, regular unwanted filming is any worse.

Either you respect the subject's privacy, or else you presume that the act of being in public is enough to make one eligible for repeated doses of unwanted video attention. You can't have it both ways.

JAJ

You are probably included in many peoples photographs without your permission having been asked. With no malign intent from anyone.

Sorry - just can't accept that anyone who might take a casual photograph that happens to include you should go to jail just because they didn't ask your permission.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Again, there is a difference between being incidental to the shot and being featured in it without consent. Likewise, there is a difference between an error and malice.

The law is filled with distinctions made based upon intent. Even the killing of another human being is subject to different punishments and convictions, based upon intent.

The OP's issue is that the pedo artiste in question may have a prurient intent, and was at the very least obtrusive. As a matter of common sense, the OP's ire was raised for reasons that most reasonable people can understand, so it withstands the "reasonable man" test applied to such situations.

The effort to paint this as a black-and-white issue gets in the way of achieving a common sense solution for an obviously troubling incident. Obviously, there are gradations and exceptions in our laws, and we can create statutes that account for those while remaining constitutional.

JAJ

So you are saying that anyone who takes a photograph of someone in a public place should be arrested and brought before the courts so that their "intent" and the "context" can be determined, with a jail sentence if the court decides appropriate.

That would effectively constitute a ban on outdoor photography.

fatbrit

But in terms of the Constitution?

Tracym

JAJ is exactly right - same thing I stated before.

You are conventiently ignoring my previous comment that if I take a photo of someone else, with you in the background, I can digitally crop it right in and have you as the main subject.

There is no difference between being the subject and the background in this age of digital.

The ONLY way to do what you want is to ban any photography containing persons, outside of one's own home.

Tracym

Nothing at all wrong with being young - one should enjoy it whilest one can. At times, however, it tends to show in one's attitude.

Rather that stoop to insults, as you do, I simply won't bother. Yawn.

Rete

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that the photographer was a pedophile? I didn't see that the police said that the man was in their files as such. So where did this come from? Or apparently it is only your opinion.


If they had not verbally attacked the photographer and quietly approached him about his film taking and demanded that he give them the film, perhaps he might have complied. Having the husband remain with him while the wife went in search of proper assistance from the staff and/or police would have been the next best course of action. People do tend to get defensive when verbally attacked.

Rete

I've never been in a Walmart that sells liquor. However, while on vacation last week I was asked by the Walmart cashier for my birthdate when I purchased a pack of cigarettes. I'm obviously over 21.

Rete

That is your opinion only. Not one that is shared by many including lawmakers in this country. There is absolutely no difference between a 17 year drinking a beer with food and drinking beer without food in this country. Both are not allowed to be served in a public establishment.

Not all establishments require two forms of identification. Most people only would have one to their name if they did not have a passport.

As for it being stupidity, it is the establishments requirement and their right to refuse to serve alcohol regardless of whether or not identification is available and valid.

Yes it is proper enforcement of the rules. He was 20. Underage drinker and underage purchaser. Both he and the establishment that sold him the beer were subject to arrest and penalty.

Respect for alcohol? You need responsibility for their actions. No most young people do not take responsibility for their actions. As many adults do not. Particularly those born in and raised by the Spock method of permissiveness.



What a shite excuse for drinking alcohol. There is no reason why one has to drink alcohol for business socializing.

You have to show proof for air travel. We are all entitled to our opinions and our beliefs in our freedom to do as we please, when we please, and our belief that big brother is too firmly planted in our back pockets.

At least you have the option of returing to your country if you truly believe that the US is nibbling away at your personal freedoms too much. Most Americans do not have that option and many Americans consider the trade off inconsequential to their daily life.