Photographing cows or other farm scenery could land you in jail under Florida Senate bill

People of Florida, don't let these disgusting bills go unargued and don't let these payed off politicians take away your rights as a citizen. If this goes unscathed that means that there is a good chance this will spread, I mean, they have basically taken the right to bear clean seeds and crops from us, now this?

Makes me want to puke.
s&f

So who's Jim Norman?

Apparently just another corrupt businessman/politician who views the public purse as an extension of the business community's private piggy bank:

www.tampabay.com... egory/buzz-tags/jim-norman

Feds seek records in investigation of Sen. Jim Norman

Federal authorities have filed a sweeping records request in their ongoing investigation into state Sen. Jim Norman's conduct as a former Hillsborough County commissioner.

Among the documents sought: his oath of office, ethics requirements for commissioners and a list of contractors who did business with the county near the time his wife purchased a lakefront Arkansas home with the help of political benefactor Ralph Hughes.

Specifically, the request seeks a list of all contractors who did business with the county six months before and after March 6, 2006 — the date the home was purchased. Read more about here.

search.tbo.com... ews&mSortNewsBy=Date&mSortShoppingBy=Date&mSortPhotoBy=Date&mSortEventsBy=ReverseDate&mSortBlogBy=Date&mSt

Jim Norman's relationship with conservative activist Ralph Hughes during Norman's tenure on the county commission. During this period, checks from Hughes were deposited in a bank account opened by Mearline Norman, according to records released in a lawsuit last year challenging Norman's candidacy for state Senate. Jim Norman's relationship with conservative activist Ralph Hughes during Norman's tenure on the county commission. The Tampa Tribune - Feb 9, 2011

Jim Norman, the Ursa Major in east Pasco's political constellation, whose entanglement with Ralph Hughes, the late businessman and activist, over a half-million-dollar lake house in Arkansas, precipitated another awkward revelation: Norman was, for years, employed by the Salvation Army as some sort of hybrid community liaison, rainmaker and unofficial lobbyist, pulling down $95,000 a year and... Dawdling about doing the right thing throughout the campaign, Norman resigned his Salvation Army post... The Tampa Tribune - Feb 4, 2011

Jim Norman's relationship with conservative activist Ralph Hughes during Norman's tenure on the county commission. During this period, checks from Hughes were deposited in a bank account opened by Mearline Norman, according to records released in a lawsuit last year challenging Norman's candidacy for state Senate. Jim Norman's relationship with conservative activist Ralph Hughes during Norman's tenure on the county commission. The Tampa Tribune - Feb 9, 2011

reply to post by 12m8keall2c

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Yes. The bill is directed specifically towards the 'efforts' of PETA and other like-minded 'organizations' ... not the average individual or tourist [group] out site-seeing, wishing to capture a particular scene or landscape for posterity's sake.

I'm no PETA fan, but remember this bill would cover photography from a public place. There are already laws on the books to cover the 'covert' example mentioned in the article.

reply to post by loam


... hence the mention of likely/possibly rewording it if they actually expect or anticipate it being passed.


Me?
I see it as little more than a "see. there. i did it." in order to satisfy a portion of their constituents and/or potential/previous campaign contributors .... likely both.

reply to post by Michelle129th

According to Bert P Krages II, Attorney at Law, who posts on his web site, photographers rights, www.krages.com... that examples of traditionally considered public areas are streets, SIDEWALKS, and public parks. Nobody has the right to prohibit photography. Or photographing their property. The only exceptions are military installation and some publicly viewable areas of Nuclear Power Plants. Nor can a business legitimately assert that taking a photograph of a subject in PUBLIC VIEW infringes on its trade secrets.

forums.dpreview.com...

Originally posted by Michelle129th

Originally posted by Skippy1138
Hmmm- I was always under the assumption that anything you can see from a public roadway or walkway you can photograph.....

I don't think that is quite accurate. Could you imagine people standing out front of your house on the "public roadway" taking pictures of you inside your house? I don't know, I've never really looked into it, but that would be darn creepy. Having said that, this new bill is ridiculous...like someone else said, why bother to have a camera at all?

Michelle

Doesn't apply. Peoples privacy in their residence is quaranteed. Other than that what you can see from a public place is free game for photos.

reply to post by loam


That law will last about thirty seconds in an honest court. I have taken some great photos of sunrise over a field with mist and cattle. The imbecile who introduced that bill needs his damned head examined, or a real good b*tch slapping. Along with any idiots who instigated it.

This whole thing is aimed keeping underwraps what happens with illegal farm workers. In some cases, they are held like slaves, and forced to buy things through their "straw boss" at hugely inflated prices. It's like the old Kentucky and West Virginia mining "company stores" where most wages went right back to the mining company.

Oh yeah, how they treat their animals. They want that under wraps too.

Originally posted by CordDragonzord
People of Florida, don't let these disgusting bills go unargued and don't let these payed off politicians take away your rights as a citizen. If this goes unscathed that means that there is a good chance this will spread, I mean, they have basically taken the right to bear clean seeds and crops from us, now this?

Makes me want to puke.
s&f

I just sent this moron an email. Here's his email addy: [email protected]

"SB 1246 by Sen. Jim Norman

You want to make it illegal to take photographs from a public road of pastural settings? Are you out of your mind? Watching the sunrise on misty fields on the way to Okeechobee is almost like Jurassic park; like something from another time.

In case you cant tell, one of my hobbies is photography.

Florida is one of the most interesting and photogenic states there is. I would think the promotional value for tourism would out weigh any other considerations.

I campaigned for Reagan and Oliver North, as well as both Bushes; this is the single dumbest and most outrageous bill I have ever seen a fellow Republican propose in my 49 years of life."

Email this moron!

Let a cop fine me or worse for taking pics on a public road. I'd be in court damned quick.

EDIT: forgot to say S & F OP

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
reply to post by toolstarr

 

Yes. The bill is directed specifically towards the 'efforts' of PETA and other like-minded 'organizations' ... not the average individual or tourist [group] out site-seeing, wishing to capture a particular scene or landscape for posterity's sake.

Personally,
I don't think it's got a snowball's chance in hades of passing ... unless, possibly, if they reword it to be more specific with regards intent and/or purpose. (?)

Still,
I'd have to say that perhaps the corps, farmers, etc. be more diligent in policing their own ranks as opposed to reliance on psychobabble legislative 'protections' like this type shyte bill.
:shk:

The problem is there are cops out there that won't care if you are not a member or have anything to do with PETA and other like-minded 'organizations'
To these cops a arrest is a arrest and if they really want someone and can not find any other charges that will stick and find photos of farms they will use them.

reply to post by ANNED


That, and given it's Florida, anything is possible...

Only thing I can think of that the farmers would be hiding is illegal aliens. There have been some reports of human rights abuses/slavery at Florida farms. Obviously hiring illegals could give farmers an advantage in these tight economic times.

For what reason would your common farmer be in the least bit worried about people photographing their beautiful farmlands? They would not have any such complaint. However complaints have apparently arisen, so from whom? Well if we conclude that the common farmer would not disapprove of such photography then exactly who would? Then we should follow the money trail. Who has a vested interest in keeping their farm operations secret? Monsanto and the like, that is who.

So then what logical conclusions could we form on such a basis? We could conclude that their farm practices are then presumably illegal or harmful, they cannot be illegal because obviously state Senators are defending these vital donation supplies, so then it must logically be harmful.

I am sorry, rural scenery is something I absolutely adore. And to be told that photographic such scenery will be a felony, I take offense to that. Even in harsh dictatorships around the world, photographing farms has never been a felony or any serious crime. Not unless they are farming something outright dangerous or 'illegal'.

From what I can tell Simpson farms is a poultry / egg type farm. I've seen one or two of those in FL and...ummm.. how to put this.. they usually aren't the kind of places that make for scenic or tourist type pictures.

Definitely an attempt to keep Peta-type groups and healthy food type groups at bay.

Deplorable...

What does Monsanto want us not to see? Hmmm get out your cameras and film away, that is what youtube is for. .

This isn't about PETA type groups etc. as tresspassing is a crime already. Besides when talking about public places when the farmers do nasty stuff to their animals that won't be viewable from public. This is just pure lunacy.

Florida is the worst police state, I would never live there again

Originally posted by johngtr
so does that not also mean it would be a crime to take any satellite photo of a farm also, without written permission of each individual farm owner. the government would be breaking their own rules yet again.

Also on the same subject google, would surely have to also get permission for farms to appear on a next edition of google earth, possibly leaving large blank spots on the map.

or am i just getting the wrong end of the stick for this subject

Everything is legal for the govt. They can kill you, arrest you, make you fight, deport you, so long as they say its ok.

ill photograph anything i want

a reply to: loam

I would assume this is more to do with image rights than anything else? In that the farmers own the land you wish to photograph, so you need their permission first. I wouldn't be suprised if this eventually traces back to a bitter farmer - someone took a photo that made a lot of money and they (farmer) didn't see a penny of it - but i could be wrong.

It is illogical either way though. What happens when someone looks at a view, memorises it, and then goes and paints it? Is the painting then an issue? Or how about the eyeballs that viewed the scene in the first place?