Two from the doctor's waiting room

Donde · Dec 13, 2018

It should be noted that with the ubiquitousness of cel phone with cameras a lot of places that at one time forbade use of cameras have now just given up trying to enforce the restriction.

Tim Tucker 2 · Dec 13, 2018

limr said:
The legal right to take photographs exists.

I'm not sure that this is entirely correct. In the UK there is no law that protects, or gives you, the right to take photographs, there is simply no law that restricts you in a public space. You are free to pursue your legitimate business in a public space together with a recognition that no expectation of privacy exists in a public space. I believe it's similar in the USA.

There's a difference between having a legal right (written in law) and following a course of action from which no law prevents you.

I'm not disagreeing with any moderator here or their decisions, in fact I agree with pixmedic. Just pointing out a difference in interpretation.

limr · Dec 13, 2018

Tim Tucker 2 said:
limr said:

The legal right to take photographs exists.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that this is entirely correct. In the UK there is no law that protects, or gives you, the right to take photographs, there is simply no law that restricts you in a public space. You are free to pursue your legitimate business in a public space together with a recognition that no expectation of privacy exists in a public space. I believe it's similar in the USA.

There's a difference between having a legal right (written in law) and following a course of action from which no law prevents you.

I'm not disagreeing with any moderator here or their decisions, in fact I agree with pixmedic. Just pointing out a difference in interpretation.

Semantics. There is no law that specifically states "You may take photographs." There is also no law that says "You may not take photographs" (there are laws that constrain that action, but none that say it is illegal in all circumstances.) The end result is the same: you have the legal right to take photographs.

In the US, something is still a legal right even in the absence of a statue that specifically states it. The Constitution and Bill of Rights provides the umbrella. Statutes, administrative law, and common law governs the regulations and restrictions of those rights.

tirediron · Dec 13, 2018

limr said:
Semantics. There is no law that specifically states "You may take photographs." There is also no law that says "You may not take photographs" (there are laws that constrain that action, but none that say it is illegal in all circumstances.) The end result is the same: you have the legal right to take photographs.

To the former, I believe you are correct; to the latter, as you stated, there are many laws which restrict the right to take photographs. AFAIK, photography is covered under your constitution's first amendment, but it doesn't specifically cite photography as a form of speech which is protected, so is it not a case of it being protected by precedent rather than it being a right?

limr said:
In the US, something is still a legal right even in the absence of a statue that specifically states it. The Constitution and Bill of Rights provides the umbrella. Statutes, administrative law, and common law governs the regulations and restrictions of those rights.

Can you cite references? I'm very curious about this. Our legal systems are very similar, and this would be a rather glaring difference. Here a right is something specifically enumerated in law, the constitution or one of a couple of other select documents.

limr · Dec 13, 2018

tirediron said:
To the former, I believe you are correct; to the latter, as you stated, there are many laws which restrict the right to take photographs. AFAIK, photography is covered under your constitution's first amendment, but it doesn't specifically cite photography as a form of speech which is protected, so is it not a case of it being protected by precedent rather than it being a right?

It's the same thing. Rights are protected or regulated or restricted by law, either statutory laws or common laws (i.e. case law, precedent.) It doesn't have to enumerate all the forms of communication that is considered 'speech' in order to protect the right of speech. It only mentions something when the amendments or laws need interpretation. In other words, not everything has to be a positive right explicitely listed in order to be considered a 'right.'

limr said:
Can you cite references? I'm very curious about this. Our legal systems are very similar, and this would be a rather glaring difference. Here a right is something specifically enumerated in law, the constitution or one of a couple of other select documents.

Fundamental Rights
"To prevent abuses that threaten the entire civilization, to create happiness for all people, and to prevent great unjustified suffering, all fundamental rights are granted to all people in every civilized society. The italicized statement is also the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The amendment grants all fundamental rights not already granted in other parts of the Constitution. Moreover, each right is a liberty since it prevents certain restrictions on one's state of body or environment; liberty cannot be denied without "due process of law" (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments); and there is no due (proper) process of law to deny fundamental rights since denying such rights is inherently improper since fundamental rights are those rights whose protection is essential for the society. Liberty is the ability to do whatever one wants; thus, all restrictions are deprivations of liberty; however, some restrictions are proper and thus with due process of law. Freedom to control other people is a liberty since the right to achieve what one wants (or even merely freedom from bodily restraint) is meaningless without some control over other people. This document describes, explains, and justifies human rights and their protection by the United States Constitution."

The Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Some further explanation of various interpretations of the 9th: The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

"During the ratification debates over the Constitution, some opponents of ratification (“Anti-Federalists”) vociferously complained about the absence of a bill of rights. In response, supporters of the Constitution (“Federalists”) such as James Wilson argued that a bill of rights would be dangerous. Enumerating any rights, Wilson argued, might imply that all those not listed were surrendered. And, because it was impossible to enumerate all the rights of the people, a bill of rights might actually be construed to justify the government’s power to limit any liberties of the people that were not enumerated. [Emphasis mine.] Nevertheless, because the Anti-Federalist demand for a bill of rights resonated with the public, Federalists like James Madison countered with a pledge to offer amendments after the Constitution’s ratification. "

Tim Tucker 2 · Dec 14, 2018

limr said:
Semantics

A legal right, one written into law, implies a duty in others to provide, or make provision and failure to do so could see them in court. They can also be changed, amended or removed by normal legislation.

A fundamental right, or one written into a constitution, is one that cannot be taken away by statute and can generally only be decided or ruled by a Supreme or High Court. Violation of your Fundamental rights, or Constitution, generally allows you direct access to the Supreme, or High, Courts.

You may indeed have the right to liberty and the freedom to photograph, but does the Constitution specifically grant that over the freedom and liberty of others? For instance if you are prevented from photographing in a public space is it your Legal Right or Fundamental Right that has been infringed? For the former there has to be a specific law that grants you the right to photograph rather than it being legal because there is no legislation that prevents it. If it's the latter then it would be up to the Supreme Court to make a ruling.

I shudder when people claim they have a Legal Right to photograph in a public space. If it were ever tested and a ruling demanded it would most likely be a Supreme, or High Court ruling and most likely end up with a restriction on photography rather than a protection of your right to pursue photography because it must also look at the liberty and freedom of all. Whereas I pretty sure it is in avoiding making such a ruling that the Supreme Court protects your right to pursue your photography because it is an implied right in the absence of legislation rather than one guaranteed in legislation. If you see what I mean.