Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#11

Post by Sukotto » Tue, Sep 27, 2011, 3:34 PM UTC

I think having a "photography allowed" sign sets a dangerous precedent. Right now, you are allowed to take photographs anyplace that is not specifically disallowed by law. If these signs (or something like them) become ubiquitous it becomes only a small step to "you can only take pictures where you are specifically allowed to".

Much better, I think, to familiarize yourself with actual law (here's a good writeup for people in the US[1]) and to push back against mis-informed people trying to tell you what you can and cannot do.

[1] http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Re: undefined

#12

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Sep 27, 2011, 3:43 PM UTC

drblast wrote: post #3

The exception proves the rule. This is a fantastic example. The implicit message here is that anywhere that this sign does not exist, photography is not allowed. That's a bad precedent to set. Imagine walking around and seeing "Free Speech Permitted in this Area" signs.

Of course, when it comes to official signs. But this seems to be intended to be stuck up next to 'no photography' signs to counteract them. I kind of want one of those shirts.

Re: undefined

#13

Post by iopuy » Tue, Sep 27, 2011, 3:48 PM UTC

joeyh wrote: post #10

A picture of a smiley face in a folder does not relate to photography. But that's only one of the ways this is ill thought out.

I laughed at this however I believe the folder is actually a camera outline.

Re: undefined

#14

Post by ck2 » Tue, Sep 27, 2011, 3:55 PM UTC

I'd like to see some proof that photography led to a crime.

It's obviously just thuggery to disallow photography in a public place.

Re: undefined

#15

Post by mkup » Tue, Sep 27, 2011, 4:51 PM UTC

In USA, you have a law permitting to take a photo in a public place. In Soviet Russia a law permitting to take a photo in a public place has you.

Re: undefined

#16

Post by dpres » Tue, Sep 27, 2011, 8:41 PM UTC

Sukotto wrote: post #11

I think having a "photography allowed" sign sets a dangerous precedent. Right now, you are allowed to take photographs anyplace that is not specifically disallowed by law. If these signs (or something like them) become ubiquitous it becomes only a small step to "you can only take pictures where you are specifically allowed to". Much better, I think, to familiarize yourself with actual law (here's a good writeup for p…

It's meant to only be placed next to signs forbidding photography so you shouldn't see this sign by itself. I think its a good way to protest those signs and doesn't set a dangerous precedent if only used as a reaction to "photography forbidden" signs.