Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #1 · Approach to photographing people in the street
1bwana1 wrote:
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....Show more →
Steve, all I am saying is in the US as well as every country I know of, there are limits on speech. Limits on speech means that in some ways at least Speech is not Free (You can't literally say anything you want and never have any consequences for saying it). And government sets at least some types of consequences both criminal consequences and civil consequences. Where the limits in speech can and should be set differs from place to place but drawing the line between what will be allowed and not allowed is almost always a difficult thing to do well. My thought is that none of that is controversial. What is controversial is where to draw that line that is difficult to draw.
p.6 #2 · Approach to photographing people in the street
You all speak in generalities. In Austria, I can see Sally Man’s nude children’s images in a gallery window in a central shopping street. That’s free expression. In the US, the same act would be prosecuted. But I’m pretty sure Mein Kampf is banned in Austria, while it’s legally sold in the US.
It’s all relative.
And it was never my intention to start this kind of debate.
p.6 #3 · Approach to photographing people in the street
johnvanr wrote:
You all speak in generalities. In Austria, I can see Sally Man’s nude children’s images in a gallery window in a central shopping street. That’s free expression. In the US, the same act would be prosecuted. But I’m pretty sure Mein Kampf is banned in Austria, while it’s legally sold in the US.
It’s all relative.
And it was never my intention to start this kind of debate.
Actually those images by Sally Mann are legaly shown in exhibitions, galleries, and books here in the US. One ultra conservative Christian based judge tried to confiscate them from a Texas gallery. But they were deemed protected expressions of art and not pornographic. So legal here too.
p.6 #4 · Approach to photographing people in the street
1bwana1 wrote:
Actually those images by Sally Mann are legaly shown in exhibitions, galleries, and books here in the US. One ultra conservative Christian based judge tried to confiscate them from a Texas gallery. But they were deemed protected expressions of art and not pornographic. So legal here too.
p.6 #5 · Approach to photographing people in the street
johnvanr wrote:
And it was never my intention to start this kind of debate.
You've been here far long enough to know exactly what this thread would be, especially with the half dozen geopolitical brain trust wannabes that hang out here.
p.6 #6 · Approach to photographing people in the street
RoamingScott wrote:
You've been here far long enough to know exactly what this thread would be, especially with the half dozen geopolitical brain trust wannabes that hang out here.
I had doubts whether it would be about shooting street in a different way, but I did not think it would become a geopolitical discussion about freedoms. I doubt anyone answered my original question.
p.6 #7 · Approach to photographing people in the street
1bwana1 wrote:
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....Show more →
The answer to this discourse is clear and simple: look at the European Union push for the DSA (Digital Services Act). Nice marketing acronym with a significant underlaying message. It is officially approved censorship of hate speech which can be interpreted in multiple ways. The current interpretation follows the "wanted" mainstream in Brussels and several European countries (fortunately not all of them!). Such thing was also discussed here in the US for implementation more than two years ago. It fortunately failed so far - in my opinion, others might disagree. There are only two camps.
The DSA in Europe can also potentially extended to limit even more free photography on the street to stick to the topic.
p.6 #8 · Approach to photographing people in the street
johnvanr wrote:
I figure I can go three ways:
- ignore the rules (generally speaking, just like everyone with a mobile phone does every day everywhere);
- start shooting more abstract, focusing on light (though that style seems to become more and more of a cliche);
- start shooting street portraits with people's permission (though I'm not sure how interesting the resulting images will be).
I do have a question, though.
You say you KNOW the laws / rules. What is it about #1 that everyone with a mobile phone does that is breaking the laws / rules? What aspect of ignoring the rule(s) are you specifically referencing (and in which country)?
From a legal perspective, is there a difference between publishing vs. commercial use vs. social media sharing vs. artistic works creation (and how is that defined / differentiated in each country)?
I've seen references made in this thread's discussion that seem oversimplified excerpts. As I read through some things, there seemed to be a degree of parenthetical / condition parameters in play. Some of the language included "intimate", etc.
I kinda go back to my original references to developing a better understanding of the acuteness to the law, in detail, so you have a solid understanding of the nuance (that the lay public likely does not). Which takes me back to the generality of your #1 ... which rules (including the conditional parameters) are you specifically talking about ignoring, that everyone with a cell phone ignores?
Your comment about Schaller "ignoring" them ... is it he ignores them totally, or does he operate within the parameters of the paranthetically nuanced conditions, such that they are of no concern to him. And then, for sake of discussion brevity, he simply says he "ignores" them, when really ... he "understands the limits" of them, very well (and thus, his personal liberation is therein derived).
I don't see options #2 and #3 being a "solution", rather a concession. I think a deeper dive into what you are considering as being the restriction(s) of #1 might provide more liberation than #2 or #3. It might be that you are imposing something "grossly" that has more "nuance" to it than you've previously considered.
Again, I don't pretend to know the answer / legal in other countries ... but, I read a bevy of "conditional" (and subjective) aspects in my research. A deeper dive would warrant some case law research beyond the internet reference ... if someone truly wanted to understand where those lines are / aren't. That is, if they didn't want to be concessionary to #2 and #3.
Given your proposition of #1 for cell phone users, it might be that you are over-imposing upon yourself a standard that isn't fully met (i.e. conditional requirements) universally.
p.6 #9 · Approach to photographing people in the street
johnvanr wrote:
I’m talking about display in a shop window.
Regardless, there are shop windows in Amsterdam that I’ve never seen here in Texas. Southern United States has some pretty strong traditional religious groups that would love to restrict things that the law allows. Luckily, we can still pretty much take photos of even the most religious should they be in public spaces.
This whole thread has been off topic, but I’ve enjoyed the conversation and applaud the civil way that it has unfolded. This is, unlike another forum specializing in that upscale “L” brand of cameras, mostly devoid of personal attacks and bad moderation. I think that it is a tribute to those on this forum in that we keep some decorum.. even if we don’t always stay on topic. Excuse me for a bit, I need to put some sunscreen on my red neck.
Approach to photographing people in the street
