As far as I am concerned, if the photographer is in public view, he as the right to take a photograph.
Fact: If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, itís fair game.
There are no laws preventing photography of people, children, buildings, objects or anything else in a public place, or in any place open to the public where photography is not expressly prohibited. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place.
But donít be a pest, and donít get in anyoneís way or cause an obstruction Ė if youíre overly persistent you could face a harassment charge ie: paparazzi... I doubt that this kid in Marshall is the son/daughter of someone famous or is famous themselves.
The Police may question the intent of someone--but no crime has been committed. I find the fault is with the parents. Why were they not outside--and/or why didn't the parents question the photographer/creep/possible pedophile.
Just my opinion--but there is no law that 'he/she/it' broke.
True facts on all points.
Agree BP, it's called being a hypocrite.
Hey slow down there buddy. I remember seeing this and agreeing with ATL and Old School. What you don't remember is Ricardo. What's this about, you're egging on ATL.
I do agree, ATL needs to chill--Though he is making a great point. You Bad Penny are ignoring the fact there used to be old responses. ATL is taking it personal.
Well, thanks for the compliment. I'm worried youre flirting.
I have one major comment. You applaud my opinion, but still do not recognize that R1cardo comments used to exist here. I am verifying as quasi-testimony, they were posted here. Do you disagree?
Who are you writing to? Do you need help? I see the original author, but nothing else. You are arguing with imaginary opponents (Clint Eastwood)
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend"
Posting a comment requires free registration: