p.5 #1 · Approach to photographing people in the street
Knut. wrote:
Recent Statistics
US total traffic deaths reached 40,901 in 2023 (1.26 per 100 million vehicle-miles overall), with Interstate fatalities historically around 4,700-5,800 annually in the 1990s-2000s. Germany’s Autobahn deaths were far lower at 430 in 2010 and 409 in 2017.[iihs +3]
Rate Comparison
US Interstates had rates of 1.19 (rural) and 0.65 (urban) fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles in 1994, improving to similar levels by 2002—equating to roughly 11.9-6.5 per billion vehicle-miles. Converted similarly, German Autobahns average about 1.67 per billion vehicle-miles without speed limits (0.95 with), making them safer per mile traveled.
Germany’s lower absolute fatalities reflect engineering and driver behavior. European rankings confirm German Autobahns as relatively safe....Show more →
Statistics like this lie. I have driven a lot in Germany in my life. The parts of the Autobahn system with no speed limits has drastically shrunken since I began driving there in the 1970s. In most of the Country I find actual speeds these days to be similar to the US and Italy these days at just over 80mph/135 kph. Don't forget thathe US driving laws and roads are governed by the states. With 50 States and a population equal to almost the entire EU a more valid comparison would probably be to compare numbers with the entire EU.
Also consider the the German Autobahn is a Federal System. Those few areas where speed is now unrestricted are limited to a very narrow set of circumstances. These include road design, construction, traffic levels, weather conditions, and even time of day. Now compare the death statistics to those sections of American roads that match all these criteria and you may be able to draw more meaningful conclusions. Instinctively I doubt outcomes would be significantly different. Math remains math, and physics remains physics. For a given mass, traveling at a given velocity, the forces remain the same no matter the Government or tge ethnicity. So, the risk to outcome is also the same.
This is the same way that the health outcomes are distorted. The US is much more broad ethnic mix than Europen countries. The Italians love to brag about how their food and National heath system means longer lives. But when you look at life spans of American of Italian decent the numbers are actually about equal. In fact in California it is a bit longer than in Italy. In my personal circumstances healthcare is more effecient, is of a higher standard, and is less expensive than here in Italy. Even in the North. It is much worse in the South. Propaganda is very high in Europe. My direct comparison being Citizen of both and living in both is that freedom and respect for the individual is much reduced in Europe. Here you are heavily averaged down. This has different benefits and different negatives and these vary greatly by individual circumstances.
p.5 #2 · Approach to photographing people in the street
Demonstration in London in 2010 to protect rights to take photographs in public spaces (Leica M8.2). This was at a time when mostly private security people were overstepping their authority in trying to stop people photographing buildings, people etc. Some photographers were going out purposely to challenge this and then getting the police involved to point out that the laws permits photography in public spaces
Anyway in the age of the smart phone camera where people are taking photos of everting in every direction and all the time the whole thing is becoming meaningless. personally I do lots of street photography in the UK and never ask permission. I am free to publish but not for commercial use.
p.5 #3 · Approach to photographing people in the street
Knut. wrote:
I live in Hamburg and do not find the crime part true, but the feeling of security everyone has is very subjective (For example, it is extremely unlikely to meet someone with a gun in Germany, unless he is a police officer with at least 2 to 2.5 years training).
Looking at the 2025 German crime statistics with increases in Germany of > 200-400% tells a factual story. Again, I am not going in political matters here because it wouldn't lead to anything and one side wouldn't convince the other here either. Guns are actually less of an issue in Germany, correct - but stabbing and using knives or other sharp tools is more common there. Enough said from my view here, but I wouldn't go to Hamburg with a Leica camera in my hands or around my neck (maybe only to some very secure areas but not center city for sure). And btw I am originally from Germany, too.
p.5 #4 · Approach to photographing people in the street
1bwana1 wrote:
Statistics like this lie. I have driven a lot in Germany in my life. The parts of the Autobahn system with no speed limits has drastically shrunken since I began driving there in the 1970s. In most of the Country I find actual speeds these days to be similar to the US and Italy these days at just over 80mph/135 kph. Don't forget thathe US driving laws and roads are governed by the states. With 50 States and a population equal to almost the entire EU a more valid comparison would probably be to compare numbers with the entire EU.
Also consider the the German Autobahn is a Federal System. Those few areas where speed is now unrestricted are limited to a very narrow set of circumstances. These include road design, construction, traffic levels, weather conditions, and even time of day. Now compare the death statistics to those sections of American roads that match all these criteria and you may be able to draw more meaningful conclusions. Instinctively I doubt outcomes would be significantly different. Math remains math, and physics remains physics. For a given mass, traveling at a given velocity, the forces remain the same no matter the Government or tge ethnicity. So, the risk to outcome is also the same.
This is the same way that the health outcomes are distorted. The US is much more broad ethnic mix than Europen countries. The Italians love to brag about how their food and National heath system means longer lives. But when you look at life spans of American of Italian decent the numbers are actually about equal. In fact in California it is a bit longer than in Italy. In my personal circumstances healthcare is more effecient, is of a higher standard, and is less expensive than here in Italy. Even in the North. It is much worse in the South. Propaganda is very high in Europe. My direct comparison being Citizen of both and living in both is that freedom and respect for the individual is much reduced in Europe. Here you are heavily averaged down. This has different benefits and different negatives and these vary greatly by individual circumstances....Show more →
I guess we reach a deadlock with apodictic claims like „statistics like this lie“ I explicitly researched fatalities per billion miles driven, to make data comparable.
The data just shows that fatality rates with speed limits is lower than fatalitiy rates without speed limits on the autobahn in Germany, but BOTH numbers are clearly lower than the fatality rates on the interstates in the US. I wouldn‘t mind discussing, if you present data / statistics supporting your alternative view. But this way we get lost in „I believe“, „you believe“…
Btw: 80mph are just 128,7km/h
We talked about liberties, you have some strong views here. I just gave an example of a German liberty: driving as fast a you wish, if the road allows this. No one disputes that only a portion of all autobahns are suitable for unlimited driving.
Let‘s leave our musings and assertions on the liberty of people on both sides of the Atlantic just as they stand and get back to photography.
p.5 #5 · Approach to photographing people in the street
retrofocus wrote:
Looking at the 2025 German crime statistics with increases in Germany of > 200-400% tells a factual story. Again, I am not going in political matters here because it wouldn't lead to anything and one side wouldn't convince the other here either. Guns are actually less of an issue in Germany, correct - but stabbing and using knives or other sharp tools is more common there. Enough said from my view here, but I wouldn't go to Hamburg with a Leica camera in my hands or around my neck (maybe only to some very secure areas but not center city for sure). And btw I am originally from Germany, too. ...Show more →
Very amusing! Where did you hear that?
The police crime statistics (PKS) for 2025 are not yet published nationwide as of February 2026, as they typically appear in spring of the following year. Available regional data (e.g., Hamburg) indicate declines, but national comparisons are lacking.
But since we do have data for Hamburg (2025 versus 2024), these are the facts:
• Total offenses: 213,596 cases, down 5% (11,317 fewer than 2024’s 224,913).[stern]
• Violent crimes (incl. assault, robbery, homicide, rape): Down 5.4%.[stern]
• Robberies: Down 8.5% (200 fewer cases), concentrated in St. Pauli and St. Georg.[stern]
• Simple bodily harm: Down 1.7%.[stern]
p.5 #6 · Approach to photographing people in the street
Knut. wrote:
I guess we reach a deadlock with apodictic claims like „statistics like this lie“ I explicitly researched fatalities per billion miles driven, to make data comparable.
The data just shows that fatality rates with speed limits is lower than fatalitiy rates without speed limits on the autobahn in Germany, but BOTH numbers are clearly lower than the fatality rates on the interstates in the US. I wouldn‘t mind discussing, if you present data / statistics supporting your alternative view. But this way we get lost in „I believe“, „you believe“…
Btw: 80mph are just 128,7km/h
We talked about liberties, you have some strong views here. I just gave an example of a German liberty: driving as fast a you wish, if the road allows this. No one disputes that only a portion of all autobahns are suitable for unlimited driving.
Let‘s leave our musings and assertions on the liberty of people on both sides of the Atlantic just as they stand and get back to photography. ...Show more →
I pointed out that the lie was because the US interstate system and the German Autobahn sections whare there is unlimited speed limit are not equivalent. The Autobahn is a Federal System of relatively small size. The US Iterstate System is immensely larger and more varied to type of road. It is largely a funding concept not a construction one. The States do the design building maintenance and management including enforcement. In large part it consists of two lane, undivided, high speed, roads, more closely resembling far more dangerous country roads. These bear no resemblance safety wise to the Autobahn. Especially those sections that remain unrestricted speed. Now if we can find sections of the US Interstate that resemble unrestricted speed sections of the Autobahn in construction, design, location, usage, anlocation, and traffic loads, we could make valid comparisons on speed limits impact on fatality rates. Lacking that, the statistic is just a propaganda talking point and therefore a lie.
Even the clain the the very limited unrestricted speed on the Autobahn requires hedging. True you won't get a ticket or a fine. But there is a 130 KPH advisory maximum set by the Government. If you are involved in an incident going faster that that it is legally assumed that you were driving in an unsafe manner and are subject to repercussions of that. In fact the US Government imposes no speed limits anywhere and subjects no driver to any penalty. Period. Only local jurisdictions do that. It is a complicated thing that should not be directly compared to the US Interstate system.
As far as freedom goes the difference is palatable and obvious when I am in the two countries. The minute you put limits on speech, access to information, political associations, the right to bear arms, a National ID, the requirement to ID to authority except during actual arrest, and Government involvement in your daily life, high taxes, and National Sales taxes, you are less free. I chafe under the yoke of these things in Europe and absolutely feel that difference.
p.5 #7 · Approach to photographing people in the street
1bwana1 wrote:
In fact the US Government imposes no speed limits anywhere and subjects no driver to any penalty. Period.
This is true now but was not for decades because of the federal 55 mph limit. BTW, I remember driving faster than that in the parking lot of the company I was working for
1bwana1 wrote:
The minute you put limits on speech, access to information, political associations, the right to bear arms, a National ID, the requirement to ID to authority except during actual arrest, and Government involvement in your daily life, high taxes, and National Sales taxes, you are less free
This is an american point of view and it has its merits.
But for instance, the only country where someone tried to kill me and my wife and for almost no reason at all was the USA. It was a case or road rage and because the guy could be armed, I had no option but to flee.
Did I felt free? No.
Do I need to wear a firearm to feel free? No. Because I want to be free of violence, I want to live in a society were people express themselves and solves problems without trying to kill one another.
Me, I do not want to kill people nor have to defend myself.
And I know enough history to be sure that tyranny is not prevented by "the people" using guns to overthrow the government.
In fact, the countries were I would prefer to live except for the weather are the one in the north of Europe who are at the top of many international comparisons. And they do not need the right to own an AR-15 to do so.
I could find more examples but that is not my point: as stated before, there are a lot of things I prefer in the US but a lot in Europe too.
I can live in both and thrive or fail economically, enter politics should I want that, express my opinions in an Overton window, etc.
I'm surprised you do not see how both systems have their flaws but also their advantages.
p.5 #8 · Approach to photographing people in the street
Journalist here. My approach has always been that consent can happen as a quick nod, smile, or acknowledgement and that can be as far as it goes, unless its for publication and then always approach and ask for name, age, details for the photo caption. Not sure if the former situation technically flies in the eyes of the law. But I cant imagine a scenario where youre shooting for fun that would escalate so severely you'd land in a courtroom about it. Just my 2 euro cents...
p.5 #9 · Approach to photographing people in the street
Didn't see this thread for a few days and it has become a social commentary. Not going there, other than to say in my experience living for about 30 years in the US and about 30 years in Europe, both suffer from a lack of freedom in some areas, but those areas tend to differ and so, of source, both also offer more freedom compared to the other in some areas.
But I think there's a real distinction to be made between a lack of freedom because of restrictive laws and a lack because of restrictive norms. Also, the social services provided in Europe often come with a bureaucracy to make sure that those services don't go to the wrong people. While that's not a restriction on freedom per se, it can feel restrictive to some.
None of this has much to do with whether we can shoot people on the street and publish the resulting images, though.
In my case, I'm sure that some of those taking part in the fascist demo in Vienna wouldn't be happy seeing their faces show up anywhere in that context, but I'm dying to submit them to Alamy. Question, for nitpickers, is whether my submission to Alamy constitutes publication or whether only licensing the image from Alamy and then publishing it in a news/media outlet constitutes publication.
I think what you need to think about is whether there are identifiable people in the photographs whose reputation could be damaged by the publication of the photo. If there are many people in the photo, and none of them stand out, then there is less likely to be a problem, although I would prefer such photos to be only published in such a way that the photographer have some control over where it is published and what is said about the photo in the text etc. If it turns out for example that some identifiable person in the photo is claimed to be supporting fascism and turns out he or she was there opposing the demonstration and fighting the fascists then this could lead to lawsuits as the photo + published text could be misrepresenting the subject.
p.5 #13 · Approach to photographing people in the street
bwcolor wrote:
I do wonder what these governments will outlaw next. Tag someone giving opinions contrary to government dictate and you have hate speech. Now, government greatly restricting what you can photograph in public spaces. I find it a bit ironic that a Vienna Fascist gathering was mentioned above. Here is a word with a million definitions, but at the core is an authoritarian government. Perhaps, you should worry what restrictions come next.
For me, I think I might just photograph apples and cabbage.
After traveling in South Korea, I thought that close focusing lenses might provide another perspective that I’ve been missing and it has an additional benefit of blurring the background. I shoot mostly wide lenses, but on my next trip I’ll be switching to a bit longer lens that allows for more isolation. Just a couple of thoughts and to that end I’ve purchased new lenses that focus close and of longer telephoto. My prime lens will, for the first time, be a zoom. The 35mm equivalent focal length will be 28-76mm. ...Show more →
Hate speech involves speaking against a group of people claiming things that make people think negatively about that group even if it is just individuals who acted badly, and often may even not have been members of that group. Today there are social media sites whose algorithms actively select such posts for high visibility as the owner of the site is from a highly racist apartheid country himself, and is obviously trying to increase hatred for non-white populations. In Europe we remember that this kind of behavior can lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people (WWII) and thus it is understandable that hate speech is not protected under freedom of the press but can be considered a crime. We don't really want another world war starting because racist bigots hate other people that are not quite like themselves in skin color or other attribute. Hatred, in addition to the damage it causes to people, can really lead to unproductive use of resources and it would be much more productive for society to function in a way that is constructive and helpful to all of its people rather than build subgroups with in some cases walls and militia protecting them.
In an authoritarian government, power is highly concentrated in the hands of one person (or one party). This is not the case in most European countries which typically have coalition governments consisting of ministers from multiple political parties, and often they have to make compromises to take into account different viewpoints and different subpopulations' needs. There are a few European countries with authoritarian regimes but they were not so far mentioned in this thread.
I used to do a lot of street photography myself, but not so much in recent years, moving more towards other subjects. I think street photography is important to preserve a record of how people and places were, but currently there is so much photography going on (including everyone with their mobile phones) that there does not seem to be as much need for a historical record, and it's less easy to make something interesting in this area due to the ubiquity of photography.
p.5 #14 · Approach to photographing people in the street
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Hate speech involves speaking against a group of people claiming things that make people think negatively about that group even if it is just individuals who acted badly, and often may even not have been members of that group. Today there are social media sites whose algorithms actively select such posts for high visibility as the owner of the site is from a highly racist apartheid country himself, and is obviously trying to increase hatred for non-white populations. In Europe we remember that this kind of behavior can lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people (WWII) and thus it is understandable that hate speech is not protected under freedom of the press but can be considered a crime. We don't really want another world war starting because racist bigots hate other people that are not quite like themselves in skin color or other attribute. Hatred, in addition to the damage it causes to people, can really lead to unproductive use of resources and it would be much more productive for society to function in a way that is constructive and helpful to all of its people rather than build subgroups with in some cases walls and militia protecting them.
I strongly disagree with this statement on many levels. Free speech means good and bad speech. Speech you agree with, and speech you disagree with. The answer to the bad speech is to discredit it with better speech. The answer is not to give away freedom. That becomes a slippery slope very quickly. The lack of free speech in WWII is likely partly responsible for the ability of the bad regimes to carry out their programs without resistance. Hate speech laws are short sighted answer to another problem. Hate speech laws are not the answer.
I value freedom. I will never give up one inch to any law that limits my free speech. Never.
p.5 #15 · Approach to photographing people in the street
1bwana1 wrote:
I strongly disagree with this statement on many levels. Free speech means good and bad speech. Speech you agree with, and speech you disagree with. The answer to the bad speech is to discredit it with better speech. The answer is not to give away freedom. That becomes a slippery slope very quickly. The lack of free speech in WWII is likely partly responsible for the ability of the bad regimes to carry out their programs without resistance. Hate speech laws are short sighted answer to another problem. Hate speech laws are not the answer.
The problem today is that the social media sites' owners select what is shown to whom and it's not truly free to the users, as you don't know what other people are being shown and people are manipulated by the content they are shown to align with the views the site owner wants you to align with. Only the owner (and other billionaires) is "free" and they are in many cases abusing their freedom. An analogous thing is happening in elections in the USA as there are no limits to how much a rich person or company can donate to a candidate's campaign and so the more money you have the more votes you can control, basically. People in such societies are not really free to make up their own minds as they are being manipulated by the rich.
The majority of right wing aligned posts on X for example turned out to be either bots or people based in other countries than USA, yet they were posing as Americans. Thus people are shown apparent support for a particular political viewpoint which is faked and does not actually reflect the views of the American people, and rather seems to align with the enemies of that country who want to create chaos and discord. Yet X does nothing to get rid of these accounts because they happen to align with the views and interests of the owner. How could there be freedom of speech in such a manipulated environment? In addition, the US government now is financing right-wing political parties in Europe and basically using their influence to take away the rights of the European people to choose their own leaders.
US doesn't really have freedom of the press any more, they are ranked 57th in the world (out of 180 countries) for freedom of the press (by Reporters without Borders), while e.g. my country (Finland) is rated 5th. We used to be rated higher actually, but in a (in)famous court case Helsingin Sanomat reporters were convicted basically for planning on publishing information which could have had national security implications. This made our ranking drop. 18 out of the top 20 countries in this index are in Europe, reflecting that our journalists are relatively free to publish what they want to publish, within the law of course, and this is reflected in the high confidence citizens have in their media.
The way Hitler got into power was by inciting hatred towards "the others", in this case the Jewish people. This is how it starts, and when people turn against each other, authoritarian takeovers are possible, and can lead to massacre. The people who published and let Hitler be heard and gain power should have been held accountable for the 70 million dead people that resulted, as they were complicit.
Publishing should always be preceded by fact-checking and independent verification of the claims, and consideration for the societal implications of what could come out of publishing that content. Publishers, including social media platforms, should be made legally responsible for the accuracy and legality of the content that they put out there for people to read.
Feb 17, 2026 at 09:37 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #16 · Approach to photographing people in the street
1bwana1 wrote:
I strongly disagree with this statement on many levels. Free speech means good and bad speech. Speech you agree with, and speech you disagree with. The answer to the bad speech is to discredit it with better speech. The answer is not to give away freedom. That becomes a slippery slope very quickly. The lack of free speech in WWII is likely partly responsible for the ability of the bad regimes to carry out their programs without resistance. Hate speech laws are short sighted answer to another problem. Hate speech laws are not the answer.
I suspect the two of you agree much more than this exchange suggests if you just take a bit broader perspective. Free speech is valued in many societies because when bad speech can be countered by good speech that is seen as a great outcome for society. We want that to happen as much as possible. So in most Western democracies free speech is highly valued.
At the same time almost everyone recognizes that there are times when good speech cannot counter clear negative effects of bad speech and we then ban the bad speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is of course the classic example of speech that is typically not allowed because there is no time for someone to prevent the panic and possible death this speech would provoke with good speech countering that the theatre is not on fire. Nowhere in the world is free speech an absolute right and hardly any one suggests that would be a good thing. There are laws against things like yelling fire in a crowded theater and there are almost always consequences for things like defamation.
Balancing these two generally agreed upon principles can be tricky. It often isn't easy to know when and where to draw the line. That said, what happened in Nazi Germany and typically happens in authoritarian regimes is importantly different. Hate speech is paired with hateful actions and speech that counters this hate speech and hateful actions is almost always suppressed. Sometimes by law. Sometimes just by force. Anyone who spoke up for Jewish people in Nazi Germany even if they stayed within the confines of the law, which wasn't easy, was nearly certain to face punishment and very severe punishment. Both the hate speech and the punishment of those that challenged that speech and the system justified by it were a central part of the Nazi regime. If we care about stopping such atrocities in the future, and I believe we definitely should and perhaps especially so right now, we need to oppose both hate speech and the use of power to punish those who hold opposing views to those in power.
p.5 #17 · Approach to photographing people in the street
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The problem today is that the social media sites' owners select what is shown to whom and it's not truly free to the users, as you don't know what other people are being shown and people are manipulated by the content they are shown to align with the views the site owner wants you to align with. Only the owner (and other billionaires) is "free" and they are in many cases abusing their freedom. An analogous thing is happening in elections in the USA as there are no limits to how much a rich person or company can donate to a candidate's campaign and so the more money you have the more votes you can control, basically. People in such societies are not really free to make up their own minds as they are being manipulated by the rich.
The majority of right wing aligned posts on X for example turned out to be either bots or people based in other countries than USA, yet they were posing as Americans. Thus people are shown apparent support for a particular political viewpoint which is faked and does not actually reflect the views of the American people, and rather seems to align with the enemies of that country who want to create chaos and discord. Yet X does nothing to get rid of these accounts because they happen to align with the views and interests of the owner. How could there be freedom of speech in such a manipulated environment? In addition, the US government now is financing right-wing political parties in Europe and basically using their influence to take away the rights of the European people to choose their own leaders.
US doesn't really have freedom of the press any more, they are ranked 57th in the world (out of 180 countries) for freedom of the press (by Reporters without Borders), while e.g. my country (Finland) is rated 5th. We used to be rated higher actually, but in a (in)famous court case Helsingin Sanomat reporters were convicted basically for planning on publishing information which could have had national security implications. This made our ranking drop. 18 out of the top 20 countries in this index are in Europe, reflecting that our journalists are relatively free to publish what they want to publish, within the law of course, and this is reflected in the high confidence citizens have in their media.
The way Hitler got into power was by inciting hatred towards "the others", in this case the Jewish people. This is how it starts, and when people turn against each other, authoritarian takeovers are possible, and can lead to massacre. The people who published and let Hitler be heard and gain power should have been held accountable for the 70 million dead people that resulted, as they were complicit.
Publishing should always be preceded by fact-checking and independent verification of the claims, and consideration for the societal implications of what could come out of publishing that content. Publishers, including social media platforms, should be made legally responsible for the accuracy and legality of the content that they put out there for people to read. ...Show more →
Interesting that the organization that you source and that ranks European Countries the highest is based in Paris and funded primarily by the EU and those very same highest ranking Countries. It is also these same Countries that are advancing the concept of hate speech to control their populations. They confiscate "guns" for the "common good", they limit speech "for the common good", they confiscate the fruits of individual work through outrageous taxes "for the common good", they repeatedly elect despots who promise to do things for the "common good". Don't forget that foundation of Fascism was to promote central government control of private Corporations, and the evils of what they this time around label "Billionaires", for "the common good". This is the propaganda circle that erodes freedom the most. Europe has a long history with such behavior. We have seen this from them before. Europeans have murdered many millions because of thinking just like this. It never ends well. Then the World's free people must come and rescue the European people repeatedly. When will they learn.
p.5 #18 · Approach to photographing people in the street
Steve Spencer wrote:
I suspect the two of you agree much more than this exchange suggests if you just take a bit broader perspective. Free speech is valued in many societies because when bad speech can be countered by good speech that is seen as a great outcome for society. We want that to happen as much as possible. So in most Western democracies free speech is highly valued.
At the same time almost everyone recognizes that there are times when good speech cannot counter clear negative effects of bad speech and we then ban the bad speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is of course the classic example of speech that is typically not allowed because there is no time for someone to prevent the panic and possible death this speech would provoke with good speech countering that the theatre is not on fire. Nowhere in the world is free speech an absolute right and hardly any one suggests that would be a good thing. There are laws against things like yelling fire in a crowded theater and there are almost always consequences for things like defamation.
Balancing these two generally agreed upon principles can be tricky. It often isn't easy to know when and where to draw the line. That said, what happened in Nazi Germany and typically happens in authoritarian regimes is importantly different. Hate speech is paired with hateful actions and speech that counters this hate speech and hateful actions is almost always suppressed. Sometimes by law. Sometimes just by force. Anyone who spoke up for Jewish people in Nazi Germany even if they stayed within the confines of the law, which wasn't easy, was nearly certain to face punishment and very severe punishment. Both the hate speech and the punishment of those that challenged that speech and the system justified by it were a central part of the Nazi regime. If we care about stopping such atrocities in the future, and I believe we definitely should and perhaps especially so right now, we need to oppose both hate speech and the use of power to punish those who hold opposing views to those in power. ...Show more →
I doubt that we agree on all that much. But I am good with that. I like when people have differing points of view.
While often quoted as an example of limiting free speech there actually is no statue (especially a Federal one) related to speech that is violated when someone "shouts fire in a crowded theater". This is a misdirection used to justify limits on free speech. If any laws for doing this are violated they are local ordinances regarding disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, or false reporting of an emergency, that one is charged with. It is not even remotely related to free speech issues. This has been confirmed by multiple Supreme Court decisions. The use of this to support free speech limitation is again part of the circle of propaganda being used to support limiting freedom for the "common good".
The people of the U.S. are very fortunate that so many important rights are enshrined in it's Constitution which makes it very difficult for others to limit those rights"for the common good".
Feb 17, 2026 at 11:04 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #19 · Approach to photographing people in the street
1bwana1 wrote:
I doubt that we agree on all that much. But I am good with that. I like when people have differing points of view.
While often quoted as an example of limiting free speech there actually is no statue (especially a Federal one) related to speech that is violated when someone "shouts fire in a crowded theater". This is a misdirection used to justify limits on free speech. If any laws for doing this are violated they are local ordinances regarding disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, or false reporting of an emergency, that one is charged with. It is not even remotely related to free speech issues. This has been confirmed by multiple Supreme Court decisions. The use of this to support free speech limitation is again part of the circle of propaganda being used to support limiting freedom for the "common good".
The people of the U.S. are very fortunate that so many important rights are enshrined in it's Constitution which makes it very difficult for others to limit those rights"for the common good"....Show more →
Whether you like that example or not, there are limits on Free Speech in the US. Some of them criminal and some of them civil. Lying to a federal agent is against the law. Lying under oath is against the law. There are civil penalties for false claims. Alex Jones for example had to pay tens of millions to the victim's families of the Sandy Hook shooting for his lies about that tragedy.
Free Speech is an important right in the US, but like all rights, even the most important, there are always limits on those rights and where to set those limits, especially when the rights are important, is never easy.
p.5 #20 · Approach to photographing people in the street
Steve Spencer wrote:
Whether you like that example or not, there are limits on Free Speech in the US. Some of them criminal and some of them civil. Lying to a federal agent is against the law. Lying under oath is against the law. There are civil penalties for false claims. Alex Jones for example had to pay tens of millions to the victim's families of the Sandy Hook shooting for his lies about that tragedy.
Free Speech is an important right in the US, but like all rights, even the most important, there are always limits on those rights and where to set those limits, especially when the rights are important, is never easy. ...Show more →
None of your examples have anything to do with free speech. They are specific acts of other offenses. Free speech is doesn't protect one from responsibility for acts of slander. There are Civil procedures that allow for the recovery of damages for the injured party. But they have nothing to do with Government sanctions.
There are laws against some acts of speech. But, there are no laws in the U.S. that are similar to the hate speech laws currently be passed in some Countries. That sort of thing doesn't exist in the U.S. and hopefully never will. They are clear assaults on free speech and should properly be ruled against when challenged on Constitutional grounds.
Approach to photographing people in the street
