Photog assaulted by cops in Florida

DavidHarpe · #15 11-06-2004, 03:53 AM

A person with a camera is not like a person with a handicap or someone who is a minority. It's a totally different category.

It's very simple. The property owner or their designate can ask you to stop taking photos, and if you refuse they can ask you to leave. If you don't leave you can be arrested. It falls under the same category as being able to throw people out who have boomboxes, skateboards, rollerskates, pets, wheelbarrows, riding lawnmowers, 1M candlepower spotlights, muriatic acid, etc. You don't have to list everything on the door before you can eject someone for bringing it in.

Even though prior notice is NOT required to toss people out of your mall, you will find that most shopping malls do in fact post a long list of things you can't do in the mall. It's usually near every entrance. One of the things almost always listed is photography. Check the notice on your next visit to the mall and see.

I'm not making this stuff up, and I'm not saying that it's necessarily the way things should be. Look it up yourself or ask your attorney.

Dave

RandleBate · #16 11-06-2004, 08:03 PM

Dave:

I don't have to ask my attorney; I am one. You may remember the case of the Hari Krisnas who were soliciting funds in the malls and airports, or you may not. But guess what: In the case that went to the US Supreme Court it was held that while they could be restricted to certain areas of the airport and their conduct couold be restricted so as not to annoy others, they could NOT prohibited from coming on the premises. That ruling also appllies to photographers at malls.

DavidHarpe · #17 11-07-2004, 12:43 AM

If you're an attorney, you'd know that it's a really long stretch to connect a case involving Krishna's in an airport...basically a religious expression issue...with a photographer taking photos in a shopping mall. They are very dissimilar.

No real point in arguing this one. If you want to go shooting in shopping malls and wrestling with security guards and running the case all the way up to the supreme court...have at it. I'll buy you dinner if you win the case.

RandleBate · #18 11-07-2004, 04:02 AM

I just know what the Supreme Court ruled.

DavidHarpe · #19 11-08-2004, 12:25 AM

Right...they ruled on Hari Krishna's, not on photographers. And no it's not the same thing.

RandleBate · #20 11-08-2004, 03:40 AM

Wrong, the court ruled on the First Amendment of the US Constitution: it did not rule on Hari Krisna's as an entity, they were just the party involved who brought the issue to the court. If as if the ACLU brought a case, the court would not rule on the ACLU, it would rule on the law as interpreted by the Constitution. And if you think I am not a Constitutional lawyer, feel free to "google" me. They usually have a case or two that I have successfully appealed. My full name is: Randle H. Bate.

DavidHarpe · #21 11-08-2004, 09:26 AM

The Krishna case was hardly a slam-dunk for the first amendment. You forgot to mention that the court ruled that the Port Authority had every right to restrict the Krishna activities to the OUTSIDE of the building, they just couldn't keep them off the property entirely. A shopping mall owner has the same right to restrict access to certain areas...for example, to the outside of the mall.

In fact the court ruled in favor of the port authority in many of the key points of the case.

Here's the summary .