It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kalisdad
by your agruement, i could come onto your property and just set up camp and live there. if its OUR land, then its my land, and you have no rights to kick me off
Originally posted by HandyDandy Try it. You'd be surprised how many rights you have as a "squatter".
Originally posted by MountainLaurel
reply to post by kalisdad
Seems to me to be an unjust "rule" to begin with, and it doesn't seem the motive to arrest this kid and take his camera had anything to do with breaking the malls "rules" on camera use. It's unfortunate that this loop hole can be used to justify a blatant attack on this young man's rights.
If your doing something you don't want filmed, you probably shouldn't being doing it, especially if you are in a position of power over other peoples lives.
Originally posted by kalisdad One of the rules was that there be no photography without prior consent of the management.
Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet
This. There is no problem with people taking pictures on their cell phones of everyday activity. The only reason he was targeted was that he caught the security guards being bad.
I'm looking for details on the definition of Photojournalism, but I suspect the legal definition that I find will breeze past the private property law. Gathering documentary evidence of a crime being committed is commendable. Dude had a camera handy, why not take a picture of security guards going above their pay grade? Let's face it. Witness testimony is garbage. People are unreliable. But you can't say "No, I didn't do that." to a picture or video of you doing that.
I expect that he does not need to be a documented member of the press to have the photographs he took accepted as "photojournalism".
Originally posted by RoScoLaz
some rules are made to be broken, and should be. this is one.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
Right to privacy is not the same thing at all. That's just hyperboling the whole issue.
We have the whole issue figured out in here. All places accessible to the public are public areas. Free speech applies.
A privately owned public space is a public space that is open to the public, but owned by a private entity, typically a commercial property developer.
Because malls are private property, and our constitutional rights are triggered only when the government (and not a private citizen) tries to limit our freedoms.
The New York Court of Appeals expressly refused to apply New York's constitutional protections to free speech in shopping malls
Do individuals have First Amendment rights on others’ private property?
Generally no. The Bill of Rights provides protection for individual liberty from actions by government officials. This is called the state-action doctrine. Private property is not government-owned. Restrictions on individuals’ free-speech rights on private property do not involve state action.
Markiewicz ,16, said he was in the mall in September and took a picture of what he thought was a newsworthy event
I would like to film in the mall, how do I go about doing this?
News crews can gain access and approval to be on site by calling 604.438.4700. At no time can a camera crew film inside any stores or restaurants without prior consent from the store or restaurant manager. Requests by students/special projects will be evaluated on an individual basis. Please submit a written request: [email protected]
Originally posted by kalisdad
Originally posted by PsykoOps
Right to privacy is not the same thing at all. That's just hyperboling the whole issue.
We have the whole issue figured out in here. All places accessible to the public are public areas. Free speech applies.
wrong.
A privately owned public space is a public space that is open to the public, but owned by a private entity, typically a commercial property developer.
en.wikipedia.org...
Because malls are private property, and our constitutional rights are triggered only when the government (and not a private citizen) tries to limit our freedoms.
The New York Court of Appeals expressly refused to apply New York's constitutional protections to free speech in shopping malls
www.slate.com...
Do individuals have First Amendment rights on others’ private property?
Generally no. The Bill of Rights provides protection for individual liberty from actions by government officials. This is called the state-action doctrine. Private property is not government-owned. Restrictions on individuals’ free-speech rights on private property do not involve state action.
www.firstamendmentcenter.org...
while some states disagree, most assert that while on private property, the owners can make rules that violate the first amendment.
Don't like it? shop somewhere else!
Originally posted by Echtelion
Private security guards aren't supposed to be allowed to use physical violence like that, especially not over taking photographs. At least in my province, this is illegal.
The best logical response would have been to threat these goons just as any other thugs! You attack me? Try to steal my camera? Here's a shot of pepper spray, or a good old broken nose off your face!