permits for shooting in NYC?

[Michael_Greene]

I realize that some of these restrictions are either new or proposed.
But in New York City there have been prohibitions against photographing public buildings or structures for a long time.
I recall that when I walked across Brooklyn Bridge in the late 1950's, there were large signs on the bridge warning that photographing on the bridge was unlawful and subject to criminal penalties. The same prohibition applied to other publicly-owned places as well.

[Marc_Schoenholz]

Faced with the reality of the world we live in – a Glasgow attack and two car bombs found in London – exactly how does this fit in with government’s primary responsibility to protect its citizens?

What are elected officials thinking about?

Unfortunately this is one more example of poor management, wasting government funds and Republicrat lunacy (Democrats and Republicans).

Marc Schoenholz

[DierkHaasis]

Marc, ask any elected [and many professional] official and the answer to you question is very obvious to them. It's the first reason I gave, forbid anything that may lead to a terrorist attack and you have protected your citizens.

Essentially it comes down to: Put everyone innocent in camps with guards. That way they feel protected [which they are - from themselves] and everyone running around outside is obviously guilty. Reminds me of the one social-political comment George Romero actually thought of when doing Night of the Living Dead, shoot everything that moves, it's at least a virtual threat.

Some day film buffs may - to come up with a motion picture allusion targeting the whole family - see what George Lucas' new Star Wars trilogy is about, '... so that's the way freedom goes, with thunderous applause.' It's the small things leading up to the big picture.

[Marc_Schoenholz]

Dierk,

So if I extend this thinking one more step, then let’s implement laws against the following (of course all to protect OUR FREEDOM):

1. No backpacks can be used in public (including children going to schools)
2. No briefcases, attaché cases, or school bags
3. Read only from approved lists
4. Do only approved activity
5. Believe only as we say
6. Have only as many children as authorized
7. Have only children of the approved sex

OOPS, I forgot this is still America and each of us can still cast our vote for sanity and make our opinions heard.

Our voices and actions count. Elected officials are impacted by voter correspondence and the fear of lost tourism dollars.

Marc Schoenholz

[TimRucci]

Are they trying to protect us from terrorists, or from photographers?

Would any of the terrorists who learned how to fly planes have been unable to go down to City Hall (or whereever) to apply for a permit to take pictures in a public place?

If nobody suspected them of being terrorists and they were allowed admission to flight schools, does anyone in his or her right mind think they would have been unable to apply for and receive a photo permit?

I think everyone's going nuts!

[DierkHaasis]

There's a difference between proclaiming to rule something for protection - and actually protecting people. For officials and politicians it does not matter which reasoning they use - often enough they mix them without anybody questioning their consistency - as long as their rulings pass.

Anybody is a Living Dead [sorry: terrorist or copyright infringer], so shoot them in the heads!

There once was a time people lived together by negotiating among them. Then societies grew and it became impractical to negotiate between them, so they invented a ruling class; after a few thousand years this ruling class became absolute. And when people, again several thousand years later, challenged this absolutism, went back to democracy - politicians and civil servants came into being. Both groups quickly forgot they are society's, that is, our, servants. Not our masters.

[drew]

Good discussion topic. Moved into soap box forum for more full discussion of issues.