The US State Dept and the First Amendment.

[JoeW]

If course there is a 'right' answer.
Having the right to free expression means that I can choose when to use it.
It was clear that, in balance, their comfort and safety was more important to me than showing a picture that was meaningful only because it put them in 'danger.'
Thinking I should show the picture because I could and that I should show them if only to exercise my right would be selfish and egotistical.

To quote Sheldon Cooper (also known as Sheldor, the Swordkeeper of Azeroth)

"With great power, comes great responsibility."

(there is a possibility that quote might be from Voltaire but I'm leaning towards Sheldor as the source.)

If you frame the whole thing this way then of course this would be the conclusion a logical man would take. However, this can also be asked in the opposite way: You are not upholding freedoms that were bitterly won purely for your selfish reason not to feel bad or personal liability. And again, i am not saying that this is what i believe, i just don't see things in a black and white manor and i can see both cases and the intentions behind them. So please don't make the assumption that i am taking one side or the other.

Actually, Lew's point is spot-on and consistent with freedom of speech. He's not required to take the photo or to display it. He simply can't be prevented from taking it in a public setting like this. And it's his right to choose to take it/delete it as he chooses. And Lew is clear that it's HIS choice to make....the State Dept. or some other demand by a person ("hey--you can't take my picture without my permission!") doesn't trump that right. Freedom of speech doesn't compel speech, it allows for the freedom to speak.

Many decades ago during the Carter Administration, I was a fledging photographer and sat in on a meeting with a member of the editorial Board of the Washington Post, a senior member of the US State Dept, and a member of the US intelligence community. It came up in the discussion that there were 5 members of the US Embassy in Iran who were being hidden by the Canadian Embassy in Tehran and that the Post had known about this from some time previously. The Post had the right to publish that information but as I found out in that meeting, clearly had decided to withhold it from publication b/c the Post Editorial and Publishing team had concluded that while they had the "right" to publish that story, they could also withhold it....and they chose to withhold it. Choosing not to exercise one's speech isn't a failure to uphold that freedom as long as you're clear you have the freedom--the choice--in the matter.

 

[JacaRanda]

I say post the pic in its entirety. $^#% da man! power to the people!

:hail:

 

[The_Traveler]

'Considering' nuance without a framework means that any possible nuance takes consideration - and this attitude is a prescription for inaction and letting fate happen.

On the other hand, I think, a better way to look at any activity is to estimate what possible good will come of it and compare that with what possible bad results can come of it.
Thus possibilities are given some weight as are results.
It is clear that the potential harm to a group of people certainly outweighs any fictional shoring up of freedom of expression.
(For those who are Jewish or who follow Judaism's ethical principles, there is Pikuach Nefesh, the belief that human life is essential over all and preservation of life trumps any religious law.)
So as much as I value my own expression, when there is risk to someone else, that trumps everything.

So ruminate on your nuances all you want, the right way for me is clear.

 

[pixmedic]

Wow. This got pretty complicated.
Not sure why really...to ME (only speaking for me here) this is pretty simple.
I break it down like this....
Lew takes a picture. Legalities completely aside, a woman in the picture, for reasons that are completely irrelevant for the sake of my point, asks Lew not to post/use them.

Lew obliges her. For no other reason than the fact that she asked. No puffing up and claiming photography and/or copyright legalities, just a photographer taking someone's personal feelings into consideration. Just a photographer losing a picture because someone's feelings were more important than a photo. He didn't have to, but he chose to.

Bravo Lew. Good form indeed.
THAT people, is how a true professional acts, and sets a good example for other photographers.

 

[hamlet]

Wow. This got pretty complicated.
Not sure why really...to ME (only speaking for me here) this is pretty simple.
I break it down like this....
Lew takes a picture. Legalities completely aside, a woman in the picture, for reasons that are completely irrelevant for the sake of my point, asks Lew not to post/use them.

Lew obliges her. For no other reason than the fact that she asked. No puffing up and claiming photography and/or copyright legalities, just a photographer taking someone's personal feelings into consideration. Just a photographer losing a picture because someone's feelings were more important than a photo. He didn't have to, but he chose to.

Bravo Lew. Good form indeed.
THAT people, is how a true professional acts, and sets a good example for other photographers.

Ok, but here is my question: why did Lew post the picture at all? There has to be a part of him that was uncomfortable with the decision not to show it at all? I mean we are on the Internet and these photos are digital, you don't know who is out there that can recover the blanked out parts in a jpeg. Stalin doctored himself into a picture next to Lenin in the stone ages, they could do that then, image what they could do now?

 

[pixmedic]

Lew posted the picture as a visual references to illustrate his initial point that the woman was citing strange "rules" and a possibility genuine fear of repercussions for the photo being published.

Also, no chance of recovery if you do a "cut" and not just a black box.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I think it's a matter of treating people in a respectful way. If someone asks not to have their photo taken/used then it seems better to respect the request. There are plenty of other people to photograph and there will be plenty of other photo ops.

The woman whose group was photographed doesn't know Lew like we do, to feel like she could trust him; to her he was a stranger with a camera who has a website; she may have had some anxiety about the photo being used based on whatever may have happened or might still be happening in her country.

Something might have been lost in translation too; the group may have considered themselves to be guests of the State Dept. which may not have been the case (or have been anything remotely official). We don't know what they were told by someone from the State Dept. but she might have only recalled part of the information or not completely understood it, or might have been expressing it the way she thought it pertained to the situation (whether her perception was accurate or not).

 

[The_Traveler]

Ok, but here is my question: why did Lew post the picture at all? There has to be a part of him that was uncomfortable with the decision not to show it at all? I mean we are on the Internet and these photos are digital, you don't know who is out there that can recover the blanked out parts in a jpeg. Stalin doctored himself into a picture next to Lenin in the stone ages, they could do that then, image what they could do now?

Lew, that's me, posted A picture without the people in it. You have no idea if that's THE picture or not.

Do you not know just how totally absolutely uninformed that sentence is above in bold.
Do you think I can take off someone's hat in a jpg and look at his scalp underneath?

This isn't like paint or a psd with layers, where I can undo a layer.
Crap, if you don't understand that, I'm just flabbergasted.

 

[hamlet]

Do you think I can take off someone's hat in a jpg and look at his scalp underneath?

I don't know Lew. You are like a magician with photos, i don't know how far your talents reach. You are like one of those native Americans that can tell how many horses are on the way just by listening to the ground.

 

[The_Traveler]

They might be able to tell because, in that case, there are actually horses.
In a jpeg, there is nothing under there because there is no 'under.'

 

[hamlet]

They might be able to tell because, in that case, there are actually horses.
In a jpeg, there is nothing under there because there is no 'under.'

That is like a haiku.

 

[AlanKlein]

The woman was apparently afraid of repercussions in her home country if photos of her and her group in front of the White House got out. Being respectful for her concern and the possible dangers they may have faced was the right thing to do. This has nothing to do with freedom or legal rights. Just common sense. Lew did the correct thing.