|
|
| Re: PATH and Photography (970492) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 23 17:32:20 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 10:12:49 2010.  Bad advice Nilet.I don't think so. It seems like quite good advice to me. And being on a public forum, you posted pics with your name labeled on them. And yes, this board is monitored from time to time. So? It's not like I've done anything illegal. Not trying to bust the bubble but if it's against policy, then it is illegal. No, it's not. That's the point. There's a big difference between the policy of a person, company, or agency, and the law. An act is only illegal if it violates the law. For example, my policy is that you aren't allowed to chew with your mouth open, but you can't actually be arrested for violating my policy. The absolute worst I could do is rescind a dinner invitation and/or kick you out of my house. Some government agencies do have their policies written into the law (such as the MTA). If this is the case, then the agency's policy is also the law. I don't know if this is true for PATH or the Port Authority in general— but if it is, then those laws are subject to the same constitutional limits as any other law, and since the courts have already decided that photography is protected by the first amendment, a law against photography is unconstitutional and subject to repeal if challenged by somebody arrested for violating it. PATH may be a public service but it is still a private corporation and its rules are expected to be observed and respected while on PATH property, no matter what ones opinions are of the rules. Its public/private status is vague at best, but my point is unrelated and remains valid. Either photography is prohibited by law, in which case the law is unconstitutional and can be repealed if it's challenged in court, or photography is prohibited only by PATH's policy, in which case you can't be arrested for it. And even off property, PA police still do have jurisdiction and can question you. PA police have jurisdiction, but are also restricted by the same constitutional limitations as any other police force. They can ask questions, but I don't have to answer. They can ask for ID, but I don't have to show them. They can ask to search me or see my photos, but I don't have to let them. They can ask me to delete photos regardless of where they were taken and regardless of what they depict, but they can't make me do it. They can detain me on the scene only with reasonable suspicion and arrest me only with probable cause that I'm guilty of a crime— and photography either isn't a crime now or won't be when I'm done! |
|
|
|