Photog assaulted by cops in Florida

[SheldonNoland]

I don't see how a ruling made regarding an airport would cross-apply to a mall. The port authority is a state agency, so wouldn't the ariport be public property and the mall private? Seems like you would have to address that question seperatly before concluding that it creates precedent.

[RandleBate]

Your inability to understand the reasoning of the Court does not in any way deflect from it's efficacy. As for the property being "private" or "public," please see my first post where I stated the current status of the law regarding this issue. When a entity opens its doors and solicits the patronage of the public, it cannot discrimate, based on race, occupation, religion or any other extraneous factor. This, of course, does not diminish the right of a business to assure that the public is not infringed upon in an objectionable manner. As a result, restrictions, short of exclusion, can be placed on the conduct of certain entities to assure that this does not occur.

[DavidHarpe]

They weren't discriminating on the basis of occupation. The photographer wasn't a performance artist, he was a guy with a Betacam trying to tape a crime scene on privately owned property.

By your logic museums, galleries, movie theaters and sports venues should also be unrestricted to photographers. Obviously that is not the case.

[RandleBate]

"The guy with the betacam, comes under the umbrella of protection afforded by the First Amendment to the US Constitution as it protects his right to "Free Speech." This puts an end to this as far as I am concerned!

[Rob_Galbraith]

What will put an end to this debate is the thread being closed. While the legal aspects of shooting pictures is definitely important to the working photojournalist, too many of the posts here are either unnecessarily grumpy, self-righteous or just plain incorrect for this thread to be allowed to continue.

-Rob Galbraith