Pixiq

…and then they threw water on him…

#*@#%&@*#%&@* SDFGIJWERGQ”GQJVQ”JGQN!!!!!!

I have no more words for the trampling of our rights. All of the people involved, save the photog, are ignorant. I don’t think this is ever going to end.

The way these people act when discovering you’re a photog and you post pictures online is how I’d expect they’d react if you killed a bunch of kittens.

THIS HAS TO STOP. I hope this photog sues.

The first amendment only applies to the government and what it cannot do.

It is not a ban on what business can do.

We as like minded folks can try to persuade them to rescind their trespass order, or we can not shop in its establishments and let them know why.

“Manager Mara Bethel tells a different story.

“We’ve had a problem with him a number of times before — taking pictures of women, specifically, on the sneaky side of things — without asking their permission,” she says. “A number of customers have come in and said, ‘There’s a guy out there taking pictures and it’s really creeping us out.’”

Bethel confirms that Scott didn’t enter the coffeehouse to take pictures, nor does she describe his pictures as “lewd.” Nevertheless, she says, Scott’s persistence and demeanor were “unsettling” to her and other employees.

“For the young women around here, it felt really uncomfortable, someone kind of lurking about, and then quickly taking their picture and turning away,” Bethel says. Moreover, when someone asked Scott what he was doing, she claims he became defensive and argumentative.

“I got scared, actually, because he got really aggressive with me, not physically but verbally,” she states.

Brenda Vinson, whose family owns Uncommon Grounds, confirms that this wasn’t an isolated incident. She says several of her employees and regulars have tried, unsuccessfully, to speak to Scott about his photography.”

…

Sweet Zombie Jeebus. All of the above quoted individuals need to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. What are they worried about, he’s collecting their idiot souls?

So many things wrong with giving in to such depressing levels of stupidity.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..Tumblr roundup

@Chris: You’re right about the only government and the First. However, these businesses got the police (government as far as I know) to take care of this guy for them. Without cause. The police should have told the businesses to go pound sand since the photog wasn’t breaking ANY law. It becomes, in effect, the police chilling his free speech rights.

Here is his flickr page.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/

There has been a lively discussion going on over at reddit for the last few days.

http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/bbn1z/vermont_photographer_...

So the police should have told the business that they don’t have the right to decide who they want to do business with? A business has the right to decide who they want in their store and to issue a criminal trespass warning. Nobody is telling the photographer that he can’t stand on the street and creep everyone out. However if he is that determined to exercise his right to take photos in a public place, he needs to be ready for the mall to exercise their right to refuse him service. Constitutional rights go both ways you know.

As for blaming the police, that is just comical.

So on what basis can a business decide that they do not want to do business with a particular person? What if businesses decided that they do not want to do business with accountants? How about if they did not want cops in their store?

The photographer did not break any laws, therefore the cops should not have become involved. PERIOD!
NYCPhotorights´s last blog ..Trains Magazine Rails At Amtrak Photo Policy

Cops issue criminal trespass warnings at the request of private citizens. It is part of the job of the police and they do it for a variety of different individuals and businesses. It’s part of their job.

The mall was well within their rights to issue it. PERIOD!
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

Then why did the filth harass him at work, hmmm? I have asked this question before and I’ll ask it again, why can’t you donut eating nob jockeys solve a FUCKING CRIME!!!!! Know what a crime is? Have a clue? The filth investigated this photographer, why? Because they are retards thats why. This shit just keeps getting worse. Equal rights under the constitution, really? It’s okay for the shop owners to video anyone without permission, even point their in-store cameras to film outside their windows but when a photographer stands on public property he needs their permission, what fucking planet do you hail from? Why did the filth even waste their time with this “investigation?” What? All of a sudden nobodies getting murdered, raped, beat up or robbed in Vermont, wow, sounds like a nice place to live, no crime, except of course someone trying to steal my soul when they take my picture.

How can someone not be welcome in a place they never entered?

Or, rather, “no longer welcome” there

“it’s not required that he trespass before a no trespass order is issued.”

Do you read what you write before you post it?
Yes, I’m aware it’s not required in the Kafkaesque land of Burlington VT. That’s why people here are up at arms. It’s a nonsensical and illogical application of the law that runs contrary to basic notions of due process.

Given that JL is well known to be a fascist (I mean literally in terms of his ideology, I’m not saying that to be inflammatory) , I’m not surprised he would miss the due process issue since it’s an alien concept to his way of thinking. However, I would have expected more from you.

Actually, you just reaffirmed my point.

Courts ruled for years that things like slavery and segregation were legal. It didn’t make those things right or just while they were ruling that way.

But as I stated, you don’t care about the right or just thing to do. You’re correct about the legality, yes. The shop can legally request this; but it’s still unjust, petty revenge.

Perhaps you should think about what I’ve written (and actually contributed to the conversation) before you go into reflexive name-calling mode.

In fact, all you just did was call me a troll and not actually address my points that I’ve spelled out for you in detail here. Perhaps you should worry more about contributing to the conversation, eh?
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

Try following your own advice and read what other people are saying. You’re missing a couple different points and not by a small margin.

It sounds to me like Burlington VT doesn’t have any real crime, so police there get bored.

Seriously, sending two cops to interrogate someone who isn’t suspected of any particuler crime? Most police departments these days barely have money to pay enough officers to deal with real crimes.

obvious troll is obvious.

A slight correction: the idea of individual and inalienable rights is not an American innovation, even though it’s deeply enshrined into our government, law, and society. The concept of individual, natural rights originates in medieval England with some influence from the European continent, and was then further developed by later English thinkers, most notably John Locke who’s explication of the interactions of government and natural rights is still the defining text on the subject today.

Every time I read about another Article 44 abuse, I think “poor John Locke just rolled over in his grave.”

And this is what happens when someone who has no idea how freedom works (because he only gets the freedom the Crown & State give him) starts typing without thinking.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

@michael42

Finally. A response from that addresses the topic. So you are comparing the morality of this incident to the institution of slavery and segregation? That is quite a stretch don’t you think?

Personally I think the mall completely overreacted in this case but I can understand their thinking. As others have mentioned, the mall is a business and if this guy was bothering their customers, then the trespass warning was a business decision.

This is hardly in the same moral category as your examples. As for you rejecting the courts as the ones who would decide it is just, that means you reject the whole criminal justice system. Who would make that call? The individual officer? You take 100 cops and you get 100 diferent value systems.

He was on PUBLIC FUCKING PROPERTY!!! Not PRIVATE FUCKING PROPERTY!!!
Jody´s last blog ..Half of the government schools closing doors in Kansas City, Mo.

You raise a good point about property owner’s rights, however in this case that doesn’t quite apply. The trespassing order here didn’t just apply to the one store in question, it applied to dozens of other stores who had no connection to the incident in question and in fact might be appalled at the conduct of Uncommon Grounds’ staff.

I think as a Libertarian, who obviously cares about the right of free association and the freedom of commerce, you can see how it is problematic to have the owner of one business declare a person declared persona non grata in the business of another, without giving other owners any say in the matter. Indeed, this seems to run counter to the very idea of property rights and free association, and infringes on the rights of other business owners as much as it does the photographer’s.

And that’s to say nothing that it’s pretty absurd for a business to bar someone from entry for actions that took place outside their property, but that’s a slightly less important and certainly more contentious issue.

@goldfish

At least I’m not the one posting smug comments calling multiple people stupid and yet misunderstanding a basic fact that the photographer was not cited for trespassing.

Embarrassing isn’t it?
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

@Fascist Nation

“The mall has every right to forbid anyone from ever stepping foot on their property again.

Of course the courts have said different.”

What have the courts said about this that was different? I have not heard of any decisions that take away a property owner’s right to issue a trespass notice.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

You don’t have to do business with accountants or cops or any other group for that matter so long as the group you are discriminating against is not a protected class such as disabled, different race, etc.

He has the right to photograph from a public place, they have the right to ban him from the store. As a matter of fact, they can say anyone that owns a camera cannot buy coffee there. They have rights, and the photog has rights. I see nothing wrong with what happened from a legal standpoint. As far as what happened from a customer service/business goodwill perspective on the other hand, that is another story.

Yeah, I think a number of us here recognize that UG has a right to exercise its property rights. But we also have to right to call them out as petty, retaliatory douchebags for *why* they’ve done it in this case.

The fact that the order affects places not even directly involved just makes it worse, and yeah, the police intimidation tactics are just icing on the cake.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

Despicable. I’m traveling to Burlington and I was looking forward to the Church Street Marketplace. But now I’m not going to patronize them. They also have a Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Burlington-VT/The-Church-Street-Marketplac...

“So you are comparing the morality of this incident to the institution of slavery and segregation?”

Those are just examples of the court ruling against morality and ethics. Scale isn’t the issue. You’re trying to make it about scale, but you know it’s not. It’s about Legal vs. Just.

You still have yet to even refute the point that courts don’t always rule in a just, moral or ethical fashion. Just because that’s a fact doesn’t mean someone’s rejecting the entire court system, don’t be daft. You’re creating a false dichotomy as usual.

There’s still always the appeals process (well, except in this case – that protection has been stripped.)

Jury nullification is another relevant way of stopping bad laws – for juries *do* have the right to judge the law itself.

But once again, my point is you have made it clear from your postings that you don’t care about just, right, moral, ethical, whatever. If it’s legal, it’s apparently fine with you, and you would certainly never condemn anyone for abusing the law, or for just following orders.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

“Are you seeing the irony in this, Michael?”

Eh? You mean Matthew, right?
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

You obviously do not understand the concept of private property. Educate yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM

http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_4.pdf
Jody´s last blog ..Obama Sides with RIAA, MPAA; Backs ACTA

I understand it much better than you think or would care to admit Troll.

If you invite me in your house, you can’t beat me up.

1. The mall, being private property, has the right to ban anyone for any reason.
2. The mall should only have sent the cops if the photog tried to enter the mall after being told he’s been banned.
3. The photog was obviously well within his rights photographing people and things from a public place regardless of how it ¨creeps people out.¨

The mall did several things wrong including using the police to do their dirty work for which they should be ashamed. However I stand by their right to ban the photographer or anyone else even to their own detriment.

I just don’t get it… How can a private property place keep people from the public from taking pictures from a public vantage point?

Come on!
Rob´s last blog ..Don’t Use A Flash, Use a D5000 Instead

@michael42

“You still have yet to even refute the point that courts don’t always rule in a just, moral or ethical fashion.”

I don’t always agree with court decisions and know that I would rule differently if it were up to me. So what? I still accept the court’s authority because that is the way the criminal justice system works. For every court case there is going to be one side or the other that is unhappy with the decision. However I put on my big boy pants and accept it. When it comes time for elections, I vote of the judge or politician that most closely matches my values. What does this have to do with a business refusing to allow someone entry? Are you really saying that someone exercising their rights as property owners is immoral and the law is wrong for allowing this?

Who makes the decision that it is wrong in this specific incident? I am sure the mall feels it has a valid complaint and many people would agree. Maybe we should just take a vote on every situation?

“But once again, my point is you have made it clear from your postings that you don’t care about just, right, moral, ethical, whatever. ”

What a ridiculous assertion. Since I disagree with the majority here on many issues, I am an unjust, immoral, unethical, person. My views and morals are just fine. If you go to any other military, police, or conservative type site, you will find the majority to have many of the same views as me. I guess you will just make the same ignorant assumptions about them because they don’t feel the same as you.

You should really learn how to handle opposing viewpoints without resorting to trying to poison the well with personal attacks.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

You’re right, we certainly owe a tremendous debt to our English ancestors. Unfortunately, modern England and the Commonwealth have lost their way.
Josh Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”

Seems that Uncommon Grounds has bigger issues than photography. According to a post they made on their Facebook page they are looking for a new name and will be changing their name in the near future – seems they may not own the trademark… Interesting….

What is it they say about people who live in glass houses and stones
NYCPhotorights´s last blog ..Burlington Vermont Forces Photographer to Quit Hobby

You’ll get no argument from me on this one. I’m just saying they are free to it, now that they’ve done it we’re free to criticize. =)
Josh Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”

That’s very true, and I admit I was a little confused on this point in the article. If he’s banned from the entire mall then it must have been more than UG that issued the trespass order, they must have gotten the mall ownership to do the same – which is a huge dick move.

I can tell you right now, as the owner of a small business, if I were located in a mall that allowed my competitors/counterparts to ban customers from MY store, I’d make arrangements to leave as soon as possible.
Josh Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”

They can’t, they can just act like children and say they are not welcome in the store. It’s a stupid decision and one I’ll never understand, as a business owner I want all the customers I can get, I’m not going to refuse them based on their conduct outside my establishment.
Josh Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”

Outside of protected-class issues the only ones I can think of are the Pruneyard-type cases, but that’s about more expansive rights in state constitutions and is pretty much only California and New Jersey.

I think your missing the point abit here. so i’ll try to clarify it, because i think you may be focusing on the wrong thing (no photography pun intended).

Its not illegal for you to snap a photo of someone, but it is both creepy & a little bit annoying when some random person starts taking photos of you for no apparent reason in the street. You shouldn’t just go and take photos of a person you do not know. Its not a Law its a rule.

As for the great firewall of Australia, i’m greatly opposed to it, but nothing in your constitution or your bill of rights would protect you from the same thing. Your government could do the same thing by just say “patriot act” & hand wave it into existance…

Neither of which has anything to do with my main salient point which was this: Just because its not illegal, doesn’t give you the right to take somebodies photo, regardless of where you may be standing.

You have the right to take a picture of the mall, but the owners of the mall likewise have the right to ban you from there property. Sure they did it in an underhanded way, but i can almost guarantee that if the photographer had just smiled & left instead of standing around arguing he wouldn’t have got a banning (i have no evidence of an argument, but odds are good that he didn’t just pack up his stuff and leave).

I’m not trying to stop you from taking photos, i’m just saying “please use some darn common sense.” Because it reflects badly on other photographers & makes it harder for the rest of us.

@discarted

Yeah… i do ask permission before i shoot, its the considerate thing to do. I too have been harassed by security for taking photos when the security has overstepped its bounds… it happens. No need to make a national case out of it though.

As for all your stuff on 1st amendment rights, i’m going to ignore most of it, but point you to my first post where i said “lets be honest Americans yelling about their rights have a tendency to become slavering arse-hats.” & i’ll continue on by saying point proven (try not to take quotes out of context next time).

As for your point “His story is actually helping make things easier for me because incidences like this one, that gain much attention help educate the public about the law and the rights of photographers while shooting in public.” I would have to disagree.

You are not the public, you are the people who already know your rights. If somehow you were actually educating the general public that would be different but your essentially yelling into the darkness and hoping that someone hears you & then considers you some sort of authority.

As for me not being any kind of photographer worth looking at, you may be right but emotionalising the issue doesn’t change the facts that the photographer in question got banned.

Johnny Law is right!!
The mall owner can ban someone from their private property, the mall, for no reason except that they own it. Just like when I banned my alcoholic, convict brother from my house when he kept coming over trying to start fights. Mall is private property, street is not.
FRED

“I don’t always agree with court decisions and know that I would rule differently if it were up to me. So what? I still accept the court’s authority because that is the way the criminal justice system works.”

So you’d never work against a ruling you knew to be unjust. You’d simply accept it regardless. So you’re not refuting my statement about you. Great!

Of course you’ve only gotten partially as far as to how it works, you’ve left out appeals and the legislative/executive checks and balances.

“What does this have to do with a business refusing to allow someone entry? Are you really saying that someone exercising their rights as property owners is immoral and the law is wrong for allowing this?”

You refuse to believe that people can twist or abuse the law to their own ends? There’s your problem right there.

“What a ridiculous assertion. Since I disagree with the majority here on many issues, I am an unjust, immoral, unethical, person. My views and morals are just fine.”

This isn’t what I said, read it again. I didn’t say your morals were BAD per se at all. I pointed out the fact that in all your postings you ignore all else but the law. Your morals don’t come into it, good or bad.

“Who makes the decision that it is wrong in this specific incident?”

Apparently the public, as everyone posting their lack of support to the UG Facebook page seems to have.

“I am sure the mall feels it has a valid complaint and many people would agree. Maybe we should just take a vote on every situation?”

Looks like more people disagree, based on the reaction. The “vote” is happening in the marketplace, via people choosing not to go there, just as it should. So yes, a vote does tend to happen in every situation. It’s just that in business that vote is often with dollars.

“You should really learn how to handle opposing viewpoints without resorting to trying to poison the well with personal attacks.”

Sounds like you should take your own advice. I’ll just point out the facts of your own example of personally attacking someone for exercising their rights. Really, you couldn’t actually refute anything I said so you try to frame it as a personal attack. Like anyone’s going to have any sympathy for you…
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

Replying to my own, since I can’t reply to akagoldfish’s reply.

“Do you read what you write before you post it?
Yes, I’m aware it’s not required in the Kafkaesque land of Burlington VT. That’s why people here are up at arms. It’s a nonsensical and illogical application of the law that runs contrary to basic notions of due process.”

It’s neither Kafkaesque nor restricted to VT. A private property owner can ask to have someone notified, usually via a “bar letter” or “trespass notice” that they are not welcome on otherwise open and available private property, usually like a shop. This authority is subject to a few limitations, like you can’t bar suspect classes if you allow the general public.

Sorry, but UG were assholes acting contrary to their own interests, but legally. The police don’t have discretion to issue the order, so in that part, they were also ok. The harassing in public bit sounds typical, and wrong, but that’s hardly the heart of this matter.

@Michael42

“You refuse to believe that people can twist or abuse the law to their own ends? There’s your problem right there.”

Everyone uses the law to their advantage. This ranges all the way from the homeless guy on the street to Wall Street executives. So what? Then it goes to court and a judge or jury decides. I have no problem with jury nullification.

“I pointed out the fact that in all your postings you ignore all else but the law. Your morals don’t come into it, good or bad.”

You need to take another look at some of your posting. That is hardly what you said.

“Looks like more people disagree, based on the reaction. The “vote” is happening in the marketplace, via people choosing not to go there, just as it should. So yes, a vote does tend to happen in every situation. It’s just that in business that vote is often with dollars.”

This is as it should be but it’s not what I’m talking about. I think the coffee shop is getting what it deserves for what it’s done but that doesn’t change their rights.

You seem to think the police should have refused to issue the trespass warning after the business requested it. I disagree because the store has that legal right. Since you think the police should have refused to do their job, who would be the decider in other situations? Surely the police shouldn’t have to take a Facebook poll before they decide what laws to enforce.

Once again, you are trying so hard to refute anything I say that you end up forgetting what we are arguing about.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

Johnny Law,

People complain to cops all the time about the most mundane things and it’s up to the cops to educate the people as to whether or not they have a legitimate complaint.

I’ve experienced and seen cases where people complain to cops about a photographer (in some cases it was me), only for the cop to tell the person that there is nothing they could do because the photog was not breaking the law.

There needs to be some more concrete grounds for a business to get the police involved in an official banning. For starters, the person who they want banned should have at least entered the premises and maybe caused a disturbance, even if it just taking photos.

But in this case, the guy never stepped inside their business, so it seems like they have no grounds to get the police involved.

Down here, cops are very busy and pretty lazy, so I really don’t see them pursuing something like this. What they usually tell people is that it is a “civil matter” and tell them to pursue it in court.

And to show up at the guy’s job is just way out of line. Especially when the first cop already questioned him and should have determined he was not breaking any law.

“You need to take another look at some of your posting. That is hardly what you said.”

If I really did say it, you should have no problem quoting it. You haven’t. Just because you say I said doesn’t mean I did.

Here, let me help you:

“Judging solely by “is it the law?” he’s correct.

If you’re looking for him to consider or care whether it’s moral or just, you’re looking at the wrong person.”

and

“But once again, my point is you have made it clear from your postings that you don’t care about just, right, moral, ethical, whatever. If it’s legal, it’s apparently fine with you, and you would certainly never condemn anyone for abusing the law, or for just following orders.”

Wow, looks like it’s EXACTLY what I said. You might want to work on your reading comprehension.

“You seem to think the police should have refused to issue the trespass warning after the business requested it.”

Yet I never said that. Now you’re really just making things up.

Johnny, you change the subject so much and go off on such tangents, you end up spouting off about things I was never talking about in the first place.

One more time, I’ll make it simple for you:

“Judging solely by “is it the law?” he’s correct.

If you’re looking for him to consider or care whether it’s moral or just, you’re looking at the wrong person.”

That’s the original statement. You have yet to actually respond to that. Are you going to now say you care whether the law is moral or just, or are you going to STFU and sit down?
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

I have to admit I find it strange that the officers went to his work to issue the warning. We always tell the property owner to just call when the person is on premise and we will respond. Another way is to have the property owner send the person a certified letter (if that person is known) telling them that they are banned.

I am not sure what the policies of the PD in VT are though. Perhaps it is a small town and they go that extra mile? Perhaps this guy was known to them and they wanted to get it over with as soon as possible.

I disagree that the law needs to be changed to show just cause for a trespass warning. I think that a private person or business should be able to make that call. Would you feel any differently if this involved someone who was not a photographer? I find it unusual that you are in favor of restricting someone’s right to control their property.

If a private business is open to the public, then the general public should be given the benefit of the doubt until they somehow screw it up.

This guy was just taking photos. He was not upskirting nor focusing on little kids.

This shopping center sounds like it’s the busiest place in town, so it’s natural that a photog who shoots street photography would be there.

Same as when I head down to South Beach to take photos.

He was not just banned from the coffee shop, but from the entire mall, which is apparently the equivalent of the town center where people not only shop, but go to listen to music and dine and even attend political rallies.

One business should not have the power to ban him from the entire mall – especially one that receives millions in tax dollars – when that person did not commit a crime.

It would be different if he had committed crimes.

By banning him, they restrict his freedom from socializing and interacting with the rest of the town.

They’ve also stigmatized him by showing up to his job and interviewing him, when they had already done that on the street, and by making him an outcast to where the whole town congregates.
Carlos Miller´s last blog ..Baton Rouge cops go rogue during St. Patrick’s Day parade