|
|
| Re: PATH and Photography (966892) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
|
| (970038) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sun Aug 22 21:01:16 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 13 20:53:53 2010. I think you ought to make that disclaimer about not being a lawyer a bit larger. I don't think anyone with any common sense or knowledge of how legal systems actually work will follow your advice. |
|
|
| (970140) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Aug 22 23:50:14 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Aug 13 21:47:40 2010. Don't use flash either. I've gotten away with a few here and there since '01, but I tend to be VERY discreet about - which means NO flash.wayne |
|
|
| (970193) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 10:02:21 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by BMTLines on Fri Aug 13 22:36:35 2010. Won't happen. Been like that since H&M days.Vader |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (970198) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 10:12:49 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 13 20:53:53 2010. Bad advice Nilet. 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. Not trying to bust the bubble but if it's against policy, then it is illegal. 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. And even off property, PA police still do have jurisdiction and can question you. Just play it safe and let it be. Avoid future problems.Vader |
|
|
| (970209) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Mon Aug 23 10:47:53 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 10:02:21 2010. Who would need to be the one to repeal it? It's time to make their lives hell.Hoping the person at H&M who wrote the ban died a painful death and is one of Satan's bongos. |
|
|
| (970212) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Aug 23 11:14:33 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 10:02:21 2010. H&M was a private company - PATH is a government agency. Big difference and ripe for a challenge |
|
|
| (970222) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 11:38:03 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Aug 22 17:17:07 2010. The PA is in the unenviable position of having their property attacked by terrorists not once, but twice. As much as I dislike the policy, I'd say their paranoia is somewhat justifiable, even if there's no proof of terrorists scouting their targets photographically. |
|
|
| (970224) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 11:47:08 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Jersey Mike on Fri Aug 13 21:47:23 2010. Defeating a stupid policy and fighting a non-existent policy will have different legal outcomes. |
|
|
| (970225) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 11:52:44 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 10:12:49 2010. They're a public corporation; their shareholders are the states of New York and New Jersey, and they're funded by user fees and tax dollars. As such, I don't believe they can legally prohibit first-amendment protected activities. |
|
|
| (970241) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Aug 23 12:35:49 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 10:12:49 2010. Allowing PATH to continue to ban photography allows them to continue to obliterate history, especially in light of the replacement of the older equipment that is now going on.Railroad photography is and always has been important in the preservation of the history of railroads. "let it be" is not a solution. |
|
|
| (970250) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 12:46:05 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 11:38:03 2010. As much as I dislike the policy, I'd say their paranoia is somewhat justifiable Who cares about their paranoia? All we care about are their policies, which are NOT justifiable. Take Pride,
|
|
|
| (970251) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 12:47:22 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 11:52:44 2010. They're a public corporation; their shareholders are the states of New York and New Jersey, and they're funded by user fees and tax dollars. As such, I don't believe they can legally prohibit first-amendment protected activities. Well it doesn't seem that anyone has called them out on it yet in a court of law... Take Pride,
|
|
|
| (970257) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Aug 23 12:54:01 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 11:52:44 2010. Amtrak is also a publicly-funded, government-operated corporation, and they impose restrictions on photography, too, particularly at NYP. So far, numerous court challenges to Amtrak's policies have not caused them to change.PATH routinely reminds people who ask about their photography ban, that they lost their largest terminal on 9/11, and terrorists would use photographs of PATH equipment, trackage, and stations to plan their next attack. I don't agree with their policy, but I'm not about to test it and spend a night in jail, either. |
|
|
| (970267) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Aug 23 13:09:11 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Aug 23 12:54:01 2010. PATH routinely reminds people who ask about their photography ban, that they lost their largest terminal on 9/11, and terrorists would use photographs of PATH equipment, trackage, and stations to plan their next attack.As if a photo ban could have prevented terrorists from finding the WTC from the air. The excuse is BS and it is about time that it was challenged. Unfortunately amateur photographers and railfans do not have the resources. When PATH pisses off some artist this will go to the courts |
|
|
| (970277) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 13:16:36 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Aug 23 12:54:01 2010. Amtrak is also a publicly-funded, government-operated corporation, and they impose restrictions on photography, too, particularly at NYP. So far, numerous court challenges to Amtrak's policies have not caused them to change. Once again, that's not true. Amtrak, by policy, does not restrict amateur photography. You can take photos anywhere on Amtrak property where you are allowed to be. Take Pride,
|
|
|
| (970308) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 13:33:33 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 13:16:36 2010. Platforms are supposedly restricted to ticketholders. |
|
|
| (970339) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 13:46:48 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by BMTLines on Mon Aug 23 12:35:49 2010. Not true. Employees have and still document the system's history within permissive limits.Vader |
|
|
| (970347) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 13:52:24 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 11:52:44 2010. Wrong. Port Authority is not supported by any tax payer money. Revenue comes from tolls, real estate, and user fees from the usage of the airports, and marine cargo ports. It is a self-sustaining agency. If the PA was dependent of taxpayers money, the agency would be suffering financial drama like the MTA.Vader |
|
|
| (970359) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Aug 23 14:02:31 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 13:46:48 2010. That does nothing for people who wish to write / publish independent books on the topic. Material kept in private collections or inaccessible libraries does not count |
|
|
| (970398) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Mon Aug 23 14:53:04 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Aug 23 12:54:01 2010. But jail means a free night of room and board. |
|
|
| (970411) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Aug 23 15:03:23 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Scrabbleship on Mon Aug 23 14:53:04 2010. Yeah the cuisine is really top-notch, especially at breakfast. Those tales of romance are blown out of proportion though; don't fall for any of that "just like eHarmony" malarkey.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (970443) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 15:49:33 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Fred G on Mon Aug 23 15:03:23 2010. Don't get me started on online dating... |
|
|
| (970474) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Aug 23 16:34:14 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 15:49:33 2010. Oh I won't. This is chowline dating lol.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (970489) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Aug 23 17:26:29 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 13:33:33 2010. Which is still more liberal than PATH's photo policy |
|
|
| (970492) | |
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! |
|
|
| (970498) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Aug 23 17:43:40 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 10:12:49 2010. And even off property, PA police still do have jurisdiction and can question you.They do claim that right and perhaps they have it, however any attempt to detain a photographer who is standing on public (non-PA) property will probably be met with a lawsuit. The NYCLU is currently suing the Department of Homeland Security for harassing and arresting photographers who take pictures of the federal buildings in downtown Manhattan from the street or sidewalk. Lawsuits like that can very easily be extended to the PA if they interfere with public photography |
|
|
| (970523) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 18:09:42 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 13:33:33 2010. No, not supposedly. |
|
|
| (970542) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 23 18:55:26 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 18:09:42 2010. They are restricted to ticket holders, although at some of the Amshacks and other less utilized parts of the system outside the NEC and places like that, I can't see it being well enforced. |
|
|
| (970548) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 23 18:59:42 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 23 17:32:20 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. So? It's not like I've done anything illegal. You violated PATH policy, which may be codified into law. 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? 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. You should consult a real lawyer before giving out such "advice" or trying to provide legal "analysis." I'd say you are about as trustworthy on these issues as Adam Moreira is on analyzing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. |
|
|
| (970584) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Aug 23 19:38:48 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 15:49:33 2010. Can I get you started? |
|
|
| (970621) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 20:32:54 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 23 18:59:42 2010. Listen well Nilet. Whether we like it or not, it's policy and we have to respect it. You want to be gung-ho, by all means but don't say we didn't warn you.Vader |
|
|
| (970633) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Aug 23 21:06:02 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 23 18:55:26 2010. Likely correct. I've never seen it enforced at LAUS although I don't know who would enforce it as I've never seen Amtrak police or security out here. When the steam engine made a trip from LAUS to San Diego and back pulling Amtrak cars, they had no problems with ticketless photographers and looky loos on the platform and even off the platform. |
|
|
| (970634) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 21:06:24 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 20:32:54 2010. No. If you are willing to accept the consequences, the risk is quite small and the reward quite large. |
|
|
| (970637) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Aug 23 21:09:44 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 21:06:24 2010. Yeah, even if they see you won't they just tell you to stop? |
|
|
| (970640) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 21:12:36 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 23 18:55:26 2010. That's what I said. He said it was only supposedly, but that's not true. Hank Eisenstein isn't exactly a pillar of truth and knowledge... |
|
|
| (970644) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 21:16:16 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Easy on Mon Aug 23 21:09:44 2010. Possibly. That or maybe they'll kick you out of the system. But I don't think I've ever been stopped by the PAPD for photography so I don't know for sure. But think about it this way: how many times have you heard of someone being arrested for (and only for) photography on PATH? |
|
|
| (970649) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Aug 23 21:21:15 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 21:16:16 2010. If by arrested you mean detained, maybe once or twice. If you mean charged with a crime, never. But PATH does seem more strict than most.Dallas has a photo ban in their underground station and when I didn't know all they did was tell me to stop taking pictures over their PA system. |
|
|
| (970680) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Aug 23 22:10:10 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Lord Vader on Mon Aug 23 20:32:54 2010. There was a photo ban on the NY Subway from the 1940's through the 1990's, albeit loosely enforced. If people respected it then there would be no photos from that period for us to know how the system was back then. Photo bans must be challenged legally wherever they exist but meanwhile kudos to those who take pictures for future generations to enjoy. |
|
|
| (970689) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 22:18:09 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Easy on Mon Aug 23 21:21:15 2010. Dallas has a photo ban in their underground station No they don't. CHAPTER 2 - CODE OF CONDUCT FOR PERSONS ON DART VEHICLES, FACILITIES OR PROPERTY Take Pride,
|
|
|
| (970702) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Aug 23 22:30:58 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 22:18:09 2010. They have signs up in the underground station stating that photography is prohibited. They have a police substation in the station and they are the ones that told me over the PA that photography isn't allowed. |
|
|
| (970703) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Aug 23 22:34:52 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Aug 23 11:38:03 2010. So they can put the 'ban' at the WTC stop. Seems pointless to have such a ban if there's no ban for NJT at the Newark Penn station and Hoboken terminal. Path stations are nothing special [that requires such a ban] compared to the NYC subway stations. |
|
|
| (970704) | |
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. |
|
|
| (970705) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Aug 23 22:36:30 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Easy on Mon Aug 23 22:30:58 2010. Seems to me they need a couple of Carlos Miller types to challenge that. |
|
|
| (970708) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Mon Aug 23 22:42:22 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 23 22:36:10 2010. 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.That is actually partially correct. IIRC a woman was fined when she took pictures of safety violations at a station. The resulting press coverage trashed the MTA for issuing the ticket. The MTA caved when the NYCLU threatened to go to court over the issue. It seems that the MTA attorneys were not up for a constitutional challenge. The MTA caved again when they tried to reinstate the ban and the NYCLU threatened to sue over it once more. Ironically it took another arrest, and subsequent settlement, before the NYPD finally started easing up on subway photographers last year. |
|
|
| (970713) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 22:54:07 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Easy on Mon Aug 23 22:30:58 2010. Signs don't mean anything if there's nothing to back them up. |
|
|
| (970715) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Aug 23 22:57:08 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Aug 23 22:54:07 2010. They have the same meaning as that code of conduct, no?Just like the PATH "rule". AFAIK there's no law to back it up, but until someone challenges the ban the rule remains in effect. |
|
|
| (970718) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 23 23:00:54 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by Nilet on Mon Aug 23 22:36:10 2010. I stand by my opinions. You have a reputation earned through your actions, I wouldn't trust you based on your past experiences. |
|
|
| (970719) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 23 23:02:34 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 23 23:00:54 2010. Oh, and I'm related to plenty of lawyers or lawyers to be who have done quite well for themselves and who know about all sorts of laws on the books that most people don't know about. Did you know anything less than a full driver's license doesn't have to be recognized by a state other than your own? |
|
|
| (970734) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Aug 24 00:02:11 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 23 23:00:54 2010. Feel free to stand by your opinions. I stand by everything I've said.And I don't have a reputation "through my actions;" you've never met me and don't know any of my actions. More accurately, I have a reputation due to a handful of cranks posting uninformed rants about me. |
|
|
| (970736) | |
Re: PATH and Photography |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Aug 24 00:04:00 2010, in response to Re: PATH and Photography, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Mon Aug 23 23:02:34 2010. This isn't a game of trivia. Do you or any of your relatives have a statute that prohibits photography on PATH? If not, then it's legal regardless of whether New Jersey is required to recognise a non-driver ID issued by New York. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
