|
|
| Re: PATH and Photography (970704) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 23 22:36:10 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 23 18:59:42 2010.  I don't think so. It seems like quite good advice to me.No, it is horrible advice, and anyone would have to be pretty insane to follow it. The reason photography is legal in the subway is because somebody did follow it. Until 1994, photography was prohibited by MTA policy and New York state law. The reason it isn't today and hasn't been for the last 16 years is because somebody got arrested/ticketed for violating it, challenged the law, and had it declared unconstitutional. I didn't just make up that advice, you know— I may not be a lawyer, but I know how to cite precedents. So? It's not like I've done anything illegal. You violated PATH policy, which may be codified into law. It isn't. I've never seen any such law. Since PATH operates jointly between New York and New Jersey, there would likely be all sorts of conflicts if they tried to codify that sort of thing at the state level, and there certainly isn't a federal law specifically geared towards a local agency that operates in part of two states. Even if PATH's policy was actually codified into law somewhere, the law is unconstitutional and unenforceable for the reasons previously stated; the only reason it hasn't been formally removed from the books is that no one's had occasion to challenge it. If you took a photograph at the Pentagon, where photography is also illegal, would you try using the same type of logic in your defense? Apples and oranges. Despite the absurdity of such a position, the courts have decided that photography can be restricted in the immediate vicinity of a military base. There are no military bases inside Journal Square station, nor is it located on the property of a military installation, so that exception doesn't apply. And unless you can show me an actual law against photography somewhere in New York or New Jersey, the entire question is moot, as photography on PATH is not actually illegal. Your suggestion that photography on PATH is not a crime is naive and only makes me wonder less and less why you have so many incidents that end in trouble. Unless you can show me a statute saying otherwise, then it isn't a crime. I've pointed out that even if it were, hypothetically, prohibited by either or both of the states in which PATH operates, then that law would be unconstitutional, and we can argue the finer points of that if you like, but only with the understanding that the argument is purely hypothetical. If you want to argue that photography on PATH is actually illegal, let alone that I'm "naïve" for believing otherwise, then please show me the statute. If there's no law against it, then it's not illegal. You should consult a real lawyer before giving out such "advice" or trying to provide legal "analysis." I have one on retainer. Half of my family is or has passed the bar exam in some field or another. I may not be a lawyer myself, but I'm quite familiar with the laws that pertain to this subject. If you'd like to prove me wrong, feel free to link to the statute that prohibits photography on PATH— and if you can't find it because it doesn't exist, I'm still happy to have a theoretical debate on the merits of hypothetical anti-photography laws, as long as you acknowledge that it's hypothetical. I'd say you are about as trustworthy on these issues as Adam Moreira is on analyzing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. It's OK, you don't have to trust me. I'm not fighting for your rights for your exclusive benefit, after all. |
|
|
|