Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Vermont Legislator Wants to Ban Photography of People  (Read 2028 times)
RFPhotography
Guest
« on: April 12, 2013, 08:02:41 AM »
ReplyReply

That's not an exaggeration.  A legislator in Vermont wants to make it illegal to photograph any person without their permission.  Further, she wants to make it illegal to modify a photograph of any person without their permission.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2013, 08:29:21 AM »
ReplyReply




And the problem is...?

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1369


« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2013, 09:24:24 AM »
ReplyReply

From the comments

Quote
Doug Pizac 2 hours ago −
This bill is from early February. The attorney for NPPA wrote to the Vermont legislature about it and was told by the committee chair that there are no plans to even consider it. That was Feb. 28. So it is dead.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2013, 10:14:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Didn't see that earlier Bill, but yeah, looks like it's dead.  This time anyway.  If there's one crackpot legislator out there who'll bring forward a bill like this then no doubt there are others.  And at some point perhaps there won't be a committee chair or state house or provincial legislature with enough functioning brain cells to stop it. 
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2013, 02:38:26 PM »
ReplyReply

But the Supreme Court might.
Logged

fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1372


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2013, 04:01:04 PM »
ReplyReply

The supreme court will not let a law like this stand.  It's good to see the state legislators are able to recognize this (even as it is disappointing that one of them would submit the bill).

Unfortunately, The American people seem to think that the right to privacy is far more extensive than it really is.  It does not prevent someone from looking at you or photographing you are recording you in a public place. The sensitivity and paranoia that makes people so angry about the most innocent of photography is baffling to me. 

(I do not included harassing, invasive and/or paparazzi-photography under my comments above.)
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2013, 06:19:22 PM »
ReplyReply

But the Supreme Court might.

True.  But if a law like this were enacted and subsequently challenged, it would take years to reach the SCOTUS.  In the interim, photographers could be impacted.  A lower court may overturn the law, bit if it were appealed and the lower court ruling was stayed pending appeal, the law would still be in effect.
Logged
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1100



« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2013, 07:03:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I have to think that any federal judge this law came before would strike it down and refuse to stay his ruling pending appeal.
Logged

NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2013, 07:28:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I suspect any party chairman worthy of the name would have "words" with the guy introducing the bill. Remember, state legislators aren't exactly the brightest people, on average.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2013, 03:51:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I suspect any party chairman worthy of the name would have "words" with the guy introducing the bill. Remember, state legislators aren't exactly the brightest people, on average.


Absolutely, Nancy; we photographers obviously are, as any fool can tell!

;-)

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5717



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2013, 04:50:14 AM »
ReplyReply

True.  But if a law like this were enacted and subsequently challenged, it would take years to reach the SCOTUS.  In the interim, photographers could be impacted.  A lower court may overturn the law, bit if it were appealed and the lower court ruling was stayed pending appeal, the law would still be in effect.

Right Bob, but a stay would only be imposed if the appellate body were the ninth circuit.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2013, 10:43:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Right Bob, but a stay would only be imposed if the appellate body were the ninth circuit.



Russ, are we moving into the occult here, or is it just basic astronomy?

Rob C
Logged

ripgriffith
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2013, 11:25:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I suspect any party chairman worthy of the name would have "words" with the guy introducing the bill. Remember, state legislators aren't exactly the brightest people, on average.
Why "state"?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2013, 12:58:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Why "state"?


Why anything, Rip?

Anybody why isn't in office can have any great idea that pleases him/her, and that idea is possibly a brilliant one. But, sadly, the moment that 'office' becomes involved, ideas themselves become something very other than ideas: they become merchandise that may or may not be peddled to an electorate also not widely known for its sagacity. People in office face impossible options: do what the country needs and you won't get re-elected because it's going to be painful. So with even the best intentions in the world, every man Jack of them, other than the late Margaret Thatcher, chickens out and sells the country down the river. Proving this by being the exception, she was voted into power for three consecutive terms, until failing health and impatient 'colleagues' did their Brutus. And lost power for years.

In Scotland, in a bid to swing the Independence Issue vote towards getting out of the United Kingdom, they have (or are at least trying) to lower the voting age for this most important election to have faced Scotland in a few hundred years, to sixteen!

Tell me that isn't both irresponsble and a disgusting exploitation of youthful ignorance. So, pity your politicos for the impossibility of their calling, but watch the purse strings too.

Rob C
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3012


« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2013, 06:56:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Absolutely, Nancy; we photographers obviously are, as any fool can tell!

;-)

Hi Rob,

Apparently, some of the LuLa participants are ..., but are some of the legislators also as bright, apparently not. Which is a concern, or at least it should be (for the brighter LuLa participants at least).

The bigger issue is, is the specific legislator dim, or is he/she on the take off some lobbyist, or merely trying to get re-elected by even dimmer voters (of which there are probably many) ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2013, 08:10:29 AM »
ReplyReply

More information on this has been found out.  Apparently in Vermont, any citizen can request a bill be drafted and, it seems, the bill has to be drafted.  It's called a 'Requested Bill'.  That's what this was.  Apparently the legislator has no ability to say yes or no.  Very odd system and a complete waste of resources.  But I'll come back to my earlier thought.  If one crackpot thought this up then it's entirely possible that some other crackpot would think up something similar and we know that legislatures pass some pretty bizarre and unconstitutional laws so I still don't think something like this actually getting a reading and a vote somewhere is out of the question.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2013, 08:58:13 AM »
ReplyReply



In Scotland, in a bid to swing the Independence Issue vote towards getting out of the United Kingdom, they have (or are at least trying) to lower the voting age for this most important election to have faced Scotland in a few hundred years, to sixteen!

Rob C

Seriously?
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2013, 08:58:50 AM »
ReplyReply

More information on this has been found out.  Apparently in Vermont, any citizen can request a bill be drafted and, it seems, the bill has to be drafted.  It's called a 'Requested Bill'.  That's what this was.  Apparently the legislator has no ability to say yes or no.  Very odd system and a complete waste of resources.  But I'll come back to my earlier thought.  If one crackpot thought this up then it's entirely possible that some other crackpot would think up something similar and we know that legislatures pass some pretty bizarre and unconstitutional laws so I still don't think something like this actually getting a reading and a vote somewhere is out of the question.


One man's crackpot is another man's genius.

Who gets the arrogance to draft? Does it come by birth, by business success, lowest common denominator vote or by hollow degree?

Just askin'.

Rob C
Logged

kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2013, 03:12:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Seriously?

It's often difficult to tell the difference between Salmond serious and Salmond flippant, but yes, seriously.

Jeremy
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2013, 03:15:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Seriously?


Yep, absolutely so.

I reckon that if they offer each 16-year-old a pair of trainers to his choce, they will get their Independence vote with a massive majority.

Of course, straight after that, the shoes will have to be sold south of the border in order that the parents (those in work) will be able to pay the tax that such a tiny population base will need in order to pay the politicians and keep them in kilts. Geez! Will 007 return from Lyford Quay and take up his vacant throne?

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad