The US State Dept and the First Amendment.

[snerd]

My apologies to Lew. I was out of line.

 

[The_Traveler]

no problem here, we're OK AFAIC

 

[Braineack]

.......... their secret is so as far as I'm concerned.

Homeland Security already has copies of them, along with an Incident Report, in your dossier, Lew.

State department isn't part of homeland.

Nothing is going to come of this. No one is going to contact you.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

 

[snowbear]

In this age of "ambush journalism," and such, it is indeed refreshing to see someone respect the wishes of others. Hey, maybe they are recent, or soon to be, defectors.

As far as the image, I find the guy at left (with his hands in his pockets) interesting; it's almost as if he's getting ready to start clogging.

 

[Steve5D]

It's probably more likely that she misinterpreted something she was told regarding photography...

 

[480sparky]

.......... their secret is so as far as I'm concerned.

Homeland Security already has copies of them, along with an Incident Report, in your dossier, Lew.

State department isn't part of homeland.

Nothing is going to come of this. No one is going to contact you.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk

Where's your little flashing pen you hold up? And your sunglasses?

Sent from My Outhouse using SkidPaper.

 

[unpopular]

It's probably more likely that she misinterpreted something she was told regarding photography...

Certainly. She was probably confused over commercial use, which becomes a very complicated civil issue (key word there is civil, however). Naturally though, anyone has the right to photograph anyone in public. The problem gets a little harry in how the images are later used.

 

[JoeW]

Sounds like BS to me. "Guests of the State Dept."? Okay, even factoring in linguistic confusion, no-one is a guest of the State Dept. in the US. And this is exactly the sort of thing that the State Dept. or the people in the Visa section within any embassy of the US will NOT promise.

Now...for many other countries (where a State Dept./Ministry of Foreign Affairs) can seize your passport/limit your ability to travel and that's a huge issue, dropping their name or using them as an excuse can be a way to get cooperation. But within this country (where the majority of Americans don't travel outside our borders), it just doesn't have as much clout.

Now, I respect your decision...partially b/c you gave your word and partially b/c this was an issue for them. But what I suspect this was really about was....someone was worried that a picture of herself would somehow show up back home. Just guessing but if she's from a muslim country and is wearing more revealing clothing than what is traditionally allowed....she doesn't want any uncontrolled photos of that out there.

Last of all, I hope you got some lovely shots from Rolling Thunder and you post them in another thread.

 

[The_Traveler]

The group was appropriately clad by any country's standards..

I am using the shots from Rolling Thunder for a blog entry and hope to get to that today, thanks for asking.

 

[hamlet]

I am conflicted. On the one hand i would respect the privacy of other people even when in public where there technically is no privacy, but on the other hand this is censorship and a bad precedent. Like i don't know how to feel about this. Are your freedoms more important or are your feelings? Is there a right answer here or is it all a bit more nuanced? :neutral:

 

[The_Traveler]

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.)

 

[hamlet]

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.

 

[sm4him]

I am conflicted. On the one hand i would respect the privacy of other people even when in public where there technically is no privacy, but on the other hand this is censorship and a bad precedent. Like i don't know how to feel about this. Are your freedoms more important or are your feelings? Is there a right answer here or is it all a bit more nuanced? :neutral:

Regardless of what the woman claimed, I'd say that Lew had the "Right" to take her picture. He also probably has the "right" to post her picture. But as Lew says, he ALSO has the right to CHOOSE for himself whether or not to exercise that "right."
EVEN if the woman wouldn't truly be in "danger" if the photos were posted, the point is that she was clearly distressed by the idea that he might do so, and because of her great distress about it, Lew CHOSE to honor her request and promise not to post them. I find this incredibly refreshing, caring more about the Person than about posting a picture just because he could.

I can't answer for anyone else, obviously, but for me, the answer to your question, "Are your freedoms more important, or are your feelings?" is…that's not quite the right question.
Yes, my freedoms are VERY important to me. In fact, they are so important that if necessary, I would fight for the right to HAVE those freedoms.
But EXERCISING that freedom JUST because I "can" is essentially making ME more important than anyone else, and I prefer to use my freedoms to actually care about, respect, and lend dignity to, others. Sometimes, that means NOT doing something I have the "right" to do, in order to respect someone else's wishes.
If I take someone's picture, and they ask me not to post it…honestly, unless there is some specific, valid reason why posting it would be important, I'd rather honor their wishes.

 

[The_Traveler]

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.

Argue that my act will uphold the hard won pillars of freedom of self expression if you like, but I think arguing for the sake of argument is self indulgent and a waste of time; you'll have to go on without me.
I have to wash my hair or cut my toenails or anything else.

 

[hamlet]

I am conflicted. On the one hand i would respect the privacy of other people even when in public where there technically is no privacy, but on the other hand this is censorship and a bad precedent. Like i don't know how to feel about this. Are your freedoms more important or are your feelings? Is there a right answer here or is it all a bit more nuanced? :neutral:

Regardless of what the woman claimed, I'd say that Lew had the "Right" to take her picture. He also probably has the "right" to post her picture. But as Lew says, he ALSO has the right to CHOOSE for himself whether or not to exercise that "right."
EVEN if the woman wouldn't truly be in "danger" if the photos were posted, the point is that she was clearly distressed by the idea that he might do so, and because of her great distress about it, Lew CHOSE to honor her request and promise not to post them. I find this incredibly refreshing, caring more about the Person than about posting a picture just because he could.

I can't answer for anyone else, obviously, but for me, the answer to your question, "Are your freedoms more important, or are your feelings?" is…that's not quite the right question.
Yes, my freedoms are VERY important to me. In fact, they are so important that if necessary, I would fight for the right to HAVE those freedoms.
But EXERCISING that freedom JUST because I "can" is essentially making ME more important than anyone else, and I prefer to use my freedoms to actually care about, respect, and lend dignity to, others. Sometimes, that means NOT doing something I have the "right" to do, in order to respect someone else's wishes.
If I take someone's picture, and they ask me not to post it…honestly, unless there is some specific, valid reason why posting it would be important, I'd rather honor their wishes.

That is a fair and nuanced way to look at the whole situation, because for me there is always the bigger picture in the back of my mind that i cannot ignore.