I get how it can be confusing or ambiguously perceived ... and for critical writing, one should probably avoid using it, instead writing out the two words individually. Not because it is an improper word to use, but rather because it is a word that could be readily misunderstood with the apparent ambiguity it embodies, as has been presented.
I actually thought about changing it, but I figured, "eh" it's only a photography forum, who's gonna say anything?
Just another (small) example of the collective depth and breadth that FM'ers are attentive.
Thanks to the folks for totally derailing a topical discussion about photography, rights of landowners v. photographers, terrorism and the law with your verbal gymnastics. Very impressive.
Micky Bill wrote:
Thanks to the folks for totally derailing a topical discussion about photography, rights of landowners v. photographers, terrorism and the law with your verbal gymnastics. Very impressive.
As previously posted ...
Which takes me back to this:
"We don't believe he broke the law," Foster said.
Imo, they either did drive onto the landowners property without permission or they did not ... i.e. pretty simple once you stop trying to give respect and/or regard to the red herring(s).
Imo, the red herring @ photographic rights isn't the law in question here, trespassing on a landowners property is.
Had I been seen shooting the image below, it would be essentially undeniable that I could be held accountable to the laws of trespassing when I took this (unfinished) image, as I was on the owner's property without permission. I do not know who owns this well and the road leading to it. I had to make a choice, trespass and get the shot with these atmospheric conditions (I don't know when I'll be this way again), or find out who the owner is through my research at the courthouse or going around and knocking on doors, get permission and come back to shoot. The owner of the road/well may not even live in the region.
I found this one buried in the middle of a corn field that was only visible from a gravel lane as you passed by the service road. I make no excuse for my trespass as being justified, and should I have a landowner decide to press charges for the trespass ... the fact that I'm putting together a histo/docu/art collection on oil in this region of the country has no bearing on my trespass should the landowner still object to my being there.
Plain & Simple ... I subjected myself to the laws of trespassing.
Should a landowner object to my being there, it's his call at whether to have the authorities enforce the law, or not. I should point out that I do also speak with landowners in advance as much as is practical, and in the case of this newly found one, I'll pursue the landowner for permission @ future access.
As such, I still don't get NatGeo saying they don't believe he broke the law.
The phrase "irrespective and regardless" is redundant, as those two words mean the same thing. "Irregardless" is an erroneous word but is commonly accepted in colloquial English, and its meaning is rarely confused.
Anyway, I'm kind of intrigued about the biosecurity angle of this issue. A lot of people respond viscerally to threats of terrorism, and bioterrorism is indeed a real threat - but attempting to vilify the photographers for inadvertently exposing a long-known security vulnerability is not the answer.
If a cranky old coot doesn't want someone on his property and wants to press charges @ trespassing, he doesn't need any justification or rationale other that it is his property. Whether or not the landowner was trying to villify the trespass, only serves as yet another diversion to the real point ... were they trespassing on the landowners land?
It seems like people are wanting to make the landowner out to be the guy doing wrong here by simply exercising his rights. Maybe the landowner has something to hide, maybe he doesn't ... but that doesn't give others permission to be on his land.
Colonel Sanders and Coke want to hide their recipe's ... go poking around on their property and they'll probably want you off their property too.
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
The old answer usually during the Clinton admin was "it's for the children" because no one wants to do anything that would hurt children.
Post911 it's terrorism, almost anything can be related to protecting us from terrorism. Taking pictures of a farm, even from the public road is almost illegal in some areas, taking pictures in Long Beach may be deemed suspicious if the police determine there is not artistic merit or value in the what you are photographing.
Cattle feedlots are not pretty places and most of us omniviours don't want to know too much what happens on the other side of the fence. I don;t know who owns the air above your property under 500 feet. Probably the bank!
Since the local sheriff couldn;t figure out how to book him for bioterroism, trespassing was the next best thing. Pretty obvious too.
Micky Bill wrote:
Rusty, the oil rig you photographed might feel threatened by you taking pics because oil is essential to our economy and you could be taliban on a scouting trip. Try to talk your way out of that on the side of the road.
Yup, I've already been down that road ... with the railroad incident and me being warned that I could be put on the anti-terrorism watch list for taking pictures within 500 feet of the railroad (I think you may recall that one).
+1 @ trespassing obvious vs. bio-terrorism is a stretch. The landowner applied the law that was at his disposal to request enforcement.
Whenever I'm shooting on others property, I try to make sure I shoot in such a way that it does not have identifying characteristics. If I have a generic ... this could be any rig, anywhere ... kind of image, people seem to be much less nervous about the images.
I remember talking with one property owner about taking some pictures on his property. His biggest concern ... that I might either be from the EPA or that I might reveal something of interest to the EPA.
I assured him that I was not EPA and that I was only looking for artistic renderings (non-oil genre) of form & light. He granted permission. He didn't have anything to really hide, he just wasn't the neatest housekeeper around. He had gotten himself on the EPA's radar in the past and had former EPA battles that he didn't want to hassle with again even though he really had nothing to hide / wrong doing. Turns out, I only shot from the public road anyway (focal length/perspective stuff).
I can readily see that the landowner in the article simply doesn't want the hassle(s) (not inferring wrong doing) that can result from others putting their nose into his business. Those extra hassle's turn into legal fees and that turns in to higher costs and then we pay more for it in the long run. i.e. no free lunch. Wanting to protect/safeguard/insulate himself from those hassles/costs by maintaining his privacy is not an act of condemnation or vilification, but rather business.
Just because someone has the right to take a picture, does not negate the landowners right to protect his interests.
Also, local sheriff cannot "book" for bioterrorism, or any other terrorism for that matter. That stuff is under the purview of federal authorities and the bar is set pretty high.
RustyBug wrote:
+1 @ ir typically means the opposite/not. But in the etymology of irregardless, it is not derived on the basis of following the ir=not, it is derived from the combination of irrespective and regardless.
It is more accurate to suggest that "irregardless" results from the confusion of the other words.
Which confusion can exist for want of clear distinction : piqued by this side-discussion, I'm surprised and frustrated at not finding --in several usage books (Garner, Fowler-I/II/III, ...)-- an explanation of how "regardless" and "irrespective" differ; M-Webster's, e.g., defines the latter by the former! (and in one case doesn't even have the word, but for the form "irrespective of")
My question would be as to whether a truly "literate" audience would actually be aware of its etymology variance, or would the "literate" audience simply assume the ir to be an errant usage of a double negative from "illiterate" persons, based on attribution to ir=opposite/not without cognizance of its derivation from irrespective and regardless?
Garner's Mod.Legal Usage suggests a Supreme Court ruling on this --to wit:
"... it has found its way into judicial opinions. ... [the late] Chief Justice Rehnquist upbraided a lawyer who used irregardless, saying 'I feel bound to inform you there is no word irregardless in the English language. The word is regardless." Would that Garner had strived to sort the mistaken uses of this non-word into TWO heaps --of the confused words--; and if that's not really possible (they are just synonyms, practically), then make that assertion in the discussion. (Elsewhere, I read hints that irrespective smack of discerned independence vs. carelessness, and ... just the opposite!)
(Interestingly, Fowler's II (Gowers) doesn't cite the solecism, though it's 1965 pub'd; F III (Burchfield) does.
But as for regarding the word as being perceived to be not a real word, when in fact it is.
that begs the question of how one defines "a (real) word". Yes, there is the utterance, orally & in writing. Can't blunders be so rendered?
.:. We should keep our tools *sharp* for better articulation. There's too much slop with language.
-drofnad
As for Steinmetz, I got to see some of his amazing photos and his aerial contraption at the Nat.Geog. in D.C..
His travels surely gave him concerns much greater than the current legal citation he's in!
Regardless and irrespective do not differ. They are synonyms.
I don't know anyone who has heard the term "irregardless" and has not assumed that the speaker intended to convey the idea of "regardless". Especially in the context of what's being written or spoken. The Garner's Legal Usage dictionary suggests that the term is "semiliterate". I know middle ground is not always emotionally satisfying, but irregardless, there it is.
Just because a supreme court judge stated in an opinion that there is no such word in the English language, does not make it true (i.e. appeal to authority, as if infallible) ... at least if we consider Webster as the authority on words. All I initially intended to do was provide a reference link ... whether or not one wants to acknowledge its existence as a word, I guess that's an individual prerogative.
So, who is correct, the judge, Webster or Garner? If those three can't agree, then I would hardly expect we would come to a consensus. Agree to disagree.
Something else to consider ... but, warning ... only if you are prone to Latin vs. English/German/French etymology of what is being suggested as true synonyms with/without distinction/difference. http://thecommonparlance.blogspot.com/2007/11/regardless-v-irrespective-regard-v.html
+1 @ trespassing relatively trivial by comparison to other issues.
mdude85 wrote:
Also, local sheriff cannot "book" for bioterrorism, or any other terrorism for that matter. That stuff is under the purview of federal authorities and the bar is set pretty high.
We are a pedantic group around here aren't we
To clarify my statement. The local sheriff could have detained the photographer and called for Homeland Security or the local FBI office to look into the matter. But decided on a trespassing citation....
Micky Bill wrote:
We are a pedantic group around here aren't we
To clarify my statement. The local sheriff could have detained the photographer and called for Homeland Security or the local FBI office to look into the matter. But decided on a trespassing citation....
This place is less fun every day.
It's not pedantic.... It's an important distinction because it's not really like trespassing is "the next best thing"; it's pretty much the only thing.
As noted in the article, the only parties to raise the issue of bioterrorism were the lobby group (Kansas Livestock Association) and other "industry officials" - not law enforcement.
TT1000 wrote:
Rusty, I'm glad you're not in law enforcement.
All I've been saying all along is that if I do something that is against the law and I get caught doing it, where's the big deal if I get held accountable to the law for going against it.
I drive too fast, I get caught, I get a ticket (sometimes)
I don't wear my seatbelt, I get caught, I get a ticket (sometimes)
I drive without a license, I get caught, I get arrested (that sucked)
True story @ administrative error in different state had my license suspended and I was unaware of it. Cops pull me over because local business man called them about me looking around at an old building that was for sale according to development agency in town. Turns out the building had been sold already, but I wasn't aware of that. They run my license and find a bench warrant is out for me, even though no one could tell me what it was for or what I had done wrong.
Took two weeks (no driving, arrgh) to get it straightened out, restored and expunged from record, all charges dropped. Turns out a clerk had failed to remove me from the docket on a registration matter that had already been resolved by mail in advance of the court date (away from home and new registration docs were at home in the mail). Failure to appear, bench warrant, suspended license, arrest ... bummer, but they were just doing their job (even if a clerical error set it all in motion).
Anyway, I just find it odd that NatGeo would suggest no (trespassing) laws were violated if (as alleged in the article) they drove onto property without permission and launched a paraglider from the same property.
Was the officer compelled to arrest him for the violation because of insistence by the land owner? Could the officer have issued a citation in lieu of arrest? Was the officer catering to the land owner? Could the officer have handled it differently? Could the officer have just given him a warning (such as I have received at times)?
I'm not suggesting it was a "hang 'em high" situation, just that I like to call it like it is @ trespassing is trespassing, speeding is speeding. Rest assured, I appreciate the discretion and leniency from the judgment of an officer when I've violated the letter of the the law. But if the officer chooses to enforce the law (for whatever reason) that I've clearly violated ... just not much to say about it other than, "Yes, Sir."
"Much discussion has ensued surrounding the arrest of Mr. Steinmetz and his employee regarding the right to air space and to take photographs. The charges, in no way, are related to those two issues and focus on the landowner's right to privacy and control over their property. ..." Richmeier said. - See more at: http://gctelegram.com/news/7-12-13-Photographer-and-instructor-charged-with-criminal-trespass.
The claims of concerns over "biosecurity" and "food security" are part of a big lie campaign by large-scale agribusiness. What they really want is freedom to pursue various illegal and legal but ethically questionable practices without having to deal with the prying eyes of the public. While the Huffington Post is not exactly an unbiased source, they do a good job of outlining the increasing use of the law to prevent photographing agricultural operations, even from public property.
It does bring up an issue of what is trespassing in the air, said Kansas Livestock Association attorney Aaron Popelka.
After all, hundreds of thousands of cattle are fattening in a 100-mile radius around Garden City, and such incidents could turn into a food security issue — especially in an era where agri-terrorism is a threat.
Steinmetz was circling around the feedlot and taking photographs — not flying straight across it, Popelka said. Criminal statute, however, Popelka said, doesn't define how far land goes — in this case, how far up. Moreover, while Congress has authorized flights and air travel, the photographer wasn't engaging in air travel to pass through on a public air highway.
"This was a low-level entry with intent to remain in that space," he said.
"Much discussion has ensued surrounding the arrest of Mr. Steinmetz and his employee regarding the right to air space and to take photographs. The charges, in no way, are related to those two issues and focus on the landowner's right to privacy and control over their property. ..." (Finney County Attorney Susan Richmeier) Richmeier said.
- See more at: http://gctelegram.com/news/7-12-13-Photographer-and-instructor-charged-with-criminal-trespass#sthash.KNRerxNX.dpuf
Clearly Kansas Livestock Association attorney Aaron Popelka thinks there ought to be more they should be able to charge them with. Enough people call bullshit, and what do you know, it's only about trespassing on the ground.
on this --to wit:
