THansk to all for participating above. AND presumably below. In this Black Hole (along with those about guns, running code 3, and Fire EMS versus third sevice).
All the hypothetical amateur photograhper lost in uncompensated damage was images which he did not have a financial interest in anyway.
OK, here's the acid test for any deep and abiding love of our rights and the Constitution: if it was, say, me who took the Sandisk, and somehow the photographer could identify me and etc., I assume he would do all those legal ninja moves to me.
What if, instead of me, it was Chuck Norris? Or our spouse? Would we feel so strongly about it that we would risk our arse for it?
My point is (and I
was trying to get some dander up), the adult thing to do, whether or not I/we can cite reams of justifcations designed to protect the press from censorship*, is not just go rubbernecking and shooting photos of people we are privileged to see and help while at their worst .
==================================================
Let the Golden Rule be our guide. Not "I will because I CAN".
* As far as taking photos as a
right , the anti-surveillancew laws regarding the recording, following and otherwise surveilling of LEO's were passed because non-government agecies like the Hell's Angels and the Aryan Brotherhood were intel gathering about law and correctonal personnel in an effort to pressure them or possibly assassinate them. I assure you that while a professional photographer or videographer might get away with it, a common citizen would not, just as the judge hearing the case would routinely bar amateur (and sometimes professional) cameras and audio recorders from her/his courtroom. It isn't a right per se, it's use as a check on wrong-doing through reporting is. Goes back to Zenger versus the Crown, telling the truth as a defense.
Or just hire the legal defense team from a British tabloid newspaper.
