|
|
| Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention (625546) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (625546) | |
Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 20:11:12 2008 Story on Fox5 DCWatch the security guard try to stop the press from taking pictures while Amtrak's chief spokesman is standing next to the reporter!!! Note one of the last comments: Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is looking into proposing legislation to protect photographer's rights. Priceless! |
|
|
| (625551) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Fri May 30 20:19:21 2008, in response to Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 20:11:12 2008. WHATTA DOPE! That's the best one I've seen yet... |
|
|
| (625566) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 20:45:55 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by kp5308 on Fri May 30 20:19:21 2008. This entire matter got press attention thanks to the members of the Flickr group DC Photo Rights. Several photographers who belong to this group have made repeated efforts to contact both Amtrak and Jones La-Salle, the company that manages Union Station. After repeated broken promises on the part of Jones La-Salle to retrain its security guards, the group got the press involved. Next move is up to Jones La-Salle - stay tuned!The LA photo rights protest is scheduled for this Sunday and it is going to be a big one - several photography clubs and artists groups are working together on that one. The issue is coming to a boiling point... |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (625587) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri May 30 21:16:08 2008, in response to Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 20:11:12 2008. That's PRICELESS! To make it even more amusing, every television station everywhere has the logo on the side of their cameras, as well as microphone flags with the logo on it. It may be one thing to go after an unaffiliated photog on fantasies, takes an EXTRA measure of stupid to not recognize professionals from the local breadcaster. Three cheers for the dumbass!Real terrorists will do their thing quite surreptitiously, and already have what they need to make plans. Might as well open up the midway for the rubes, it's already too late. :-\ |
|
|
| (625591) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 21:17:38 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri May 30 21:16:08 2008. And in front of an Amtrak official standing next to the photographer!!! |
|
|
| (625593) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri May 30 21:21:42 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 21:17:38 2008. Like I said, that's one for a broadcaster's "Christmas reel." :) |
|
|
| (625597) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Robert King on Fri May 30 21:30:08 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri May 30 21:21:42 2008. No kidding! It's a cherry, that's for sure.If I was to take a guess about why the security guards harassing people with cameras, it probably comes down to a property manager or supervisor/security manager handed down an order to give people a hard time about photography. The security guard then pretty much has a choice between marching to what he's been told or finding another job. The worst part about this sort of thing is there's no accountability at all since a verbal order could have originated somewhere in midlevel supervision even though the property management company as a whole doesn't have a policy banning photography. How do you trace that back and effect useful changes? -Robert King |
|
|
| (625606) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Fri May 30 21:38:04 2008, in response to Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 20:11:12 2008. Being seen as an idiot on local TV, and on the Internet… Priceless. |
|
|
| (625607) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri May 30 21:39:12 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Robert King on Fri May 30 21:30:08 2008. As usual, you can't ... unless you document it. And like it or not, the security guard handled it as well as they could ... but now that it was on the talking lamp, betcha there's gonna be a meeting on Monday. :) |
|
|
| (625610) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 21:43:42 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Robert King on Fri May 30 21:30:08 2008. You are correct in many of your assumptions. A security guard of a refinery virtually posted a "confession" on Flickr where he said that he and the other guards knew photography was legal but their bosses wanted them to use threats and intimidation to discourage it anyway.Most photographers put their cameras away and left the scene but once in a while a savvy photographer would challenge them. Management would then blame the guard and apologize to the photographer.... I guess security is the new IMF - "if you are caught management will disavow any knowledge of your actions"... How do you trace that back and effect useful changes? Keep the heat on - press and legal till upper management issues memos to its middle managers. It worked in the Silver Springs case - now not one guard will dare approach a photographer there. |
|
|
| (625634) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Fri May 30 22:18:26 2008, in response to Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 20:11:12 2008. Not to be contrary, but since Union Station is private property why can't they make their own rules regarding photography? I just don't know how these things work. LA Union Station is also private property so I wasn't sure how much sense it made to end a photographers "rights" rally there. |
|
|
| (625661) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri May 30 23:03:04 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Easy on Fri May 30 22:18:26 2008. AMTK leases space in the station. As the lessee THEY get to decide what activities are appropriate to their visitors.ROAR |
|
|
| (625663) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Fri May 30 23:14:22 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri May 30 23:03:04 2008. In the spaces that they rent. Probably not in the common areas. |
|
|
| (625664) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 23:16:39 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Easy on Fri May 30 22:18:26 2008. Not to be contrary, but since Union Station is private property why can't they make their own rules regarding photography?Are you sure it is private property? I found this in a google cache - it used to be on LaSalle's site but either moved or deleted: A Unique Partnership Congress in turn established the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC). This 501(c)3 corporation has a President and support staff who report to a Board of Directors. The Board comprises representatives from Amtrak, the Mayor’s Office, the Federal City Council and the Federal Railroad Administration. USRC is the single point of contact for the private and public sectors. Following a national competition among the country’s most prestigious development firms, Jones Lang LaSalle was selected as the development manager to lead the Union Station Venture Ltd. The venture marked one of the country’s largest public-private partnership restorations of a historic landmark building. To reinforce the partnership, Amtrak agreed to relocate its corporate offices to Union Station. Jones Lang LaSalle arranged equity financing, and interim and permanent debt financing. We also coordinated construction management and office space leasing. Jones Lang LaSalle helped execute a strategic retail leasing and merchandising plan with a combination of local and national tenants to appeal to a diverse customer base. Results and Progress Union Station reopened on September 29, 1988. The $170 million redevelopment project was delivered on time and on budget. The refurbished Union Station is Washington’s main transportation hub, serviced by Amtrak, commuter trains, the Metro subway and a wide range of bus lines. The station serves 70,000 commuters, tourists and Capitol Hill residents and workers daily. The redevelopment created 1,900 new jobs and made Union Station the most visited attraction in D.C. A variety of public and private special events, including art exhibits, concerts and Presidential Inaugural Balls are hosted at Union Station. The redevelopment project has received Awards of Excellence from the International Council of Shopping Centers and the Urban Land Institute. Jones Lang LaSalle currently serves as the leasing and management agent. It is government property that has been leased to a nonprofit organization that in turn subleased the management to a developer. Not to mention that it is a landmark and major tourist site - imagine if the owner's of Rockefeller Center started chasing photographers off their land. |
|
|
| (625670) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Fri May 30 23:24:58 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 23:16:39 2008. It sounds like it's private and they got government money to redevelop the station. I don't know the details and wouldn't really know how it worked even if I did know them. I'm just wondering if they might be allowed to make rules even if they are extremely stupid like this one.I know in LA Amtrak, Metrolink, and the subway share the area however the waiting area is technically only for Amtrak (maybe Metrolink I'm not sure). Sometimes the guards will come by and kick out people that don't have tickets, even if you have a Metro pass and just bought something from one of their businesses. |
|
|
| (625682) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 23:38:35 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Easy on Fri May 30 23:24:58 2008. Whether or not they are allowed to make rules photographers should be allowed to protest those rules by exposing them to the press anyway. I see nothing wrong with bringing public opinion to bear on the decisions of a private company if such decisions affect the public in any way. Here you have a public station - worse even is that it is an attractive nuisance - tourists do what tourists have done ever since the camera was invented - TAKE PICTURES. It is horrible PR on behalf of the city of Washington for a security guard to bark "no photography" at an arriving tourist. Even worse is that these security guards overstep their bounds and try to stop photography OF the station from across the street. NO PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER has the right to stop a photographer from taking a picture OF his/her property from a public street - no exceptions!!Personally my opinion is that if building owners do not want their buildings photographed then they should not build photogenic buildings and/or not allow the public to enter them. |
|
|
| (625778) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Sat May 31 09:18:58 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 20:45:55 2008. Encouraging...let's keep our fingers crossed...this $#!+ has to stop... |
|
|
| (625792) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat May 31 10:32:46 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 23:38:35 2008. It is clear that if Jones-LaSalle has a lease arrangement to manage a portion of the station, then it is they who do get to decide what can and cannot be done on their property. They do not need to *own* the property, they only need to have *control* of the property.That being said, there *has* been an issue with mall owners trying to prohibit photography in their malls. The rulings seem to be trending against them: If they are open to public access, then the public *may* make photographs there in. In places where people have a reasonable right to expect privacy, photos may not be taken, but a mall is not one of these places. ROAR |
|
|
| (625832) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Sat May 31 12:04:17 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 23:38:35 2008. "Personally my opinion is that if building owners do not want their buildings photographed then they should not build photogenic buildings and/or not allow the public to enter them."And to homeowners who object to people taking pictures of their houses during the Christmas season, I have this message: DON'T DECORATE THEM! There, now I feel better. :) |
|
|
| (625871) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Robert King on Sat May 31 13:29:39 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri May 30 21:39:12 2008. I know - I had to walk that line many, many times to put myself through school (I almost started a blog titled "What do I have to do to pay my tuition fees?" about it). Believe me, I'd hate to be that security guard on Monday morning.To go from the threat of being fired for not shaking down everybody in site with a camera on Friday to the threat of being fired for having done that and gotten the place negative TV coverage is a nasty row to hoe. All for some $8 to $10 an hour pittance where you never know if you'll have a job the next day over causing the property managers the slightest amount of discomfort over anything - including negative public reaction to the enforcement of policies they created and demanded that you enforce. Let's face it, security isn't about security. It's about having inexpensive gophers you can give menial tasks, reduces your insurance costs, and act as your bad guy so you don't have to take any flack about your own unpopular decisions and - most conveniently of all - it gets you off the hook. If something goes wrong, you don't accept responsibility for it, you blame security and throw the poor bastard out of work and show everybody that you've dealt with the situation by disciplining someone. Then you go hire yourself another gopher and run the guy into the ground until he gets caught between both sides of a policy dispute and it's convenient to have him taken out back and shot and the cycle repeats itself again. -Robert King |
|
|
| (625880) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat May 31 13:49:19 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Robert King on Sat May 31 13:29:39 2008. Thanks for writing that, I was kinda hoping you would. One of the things I like to do here, much to the chagrin of others, is try to bring out other views on all the various issues in hopes that others can have a peek into how the other "side" of issues is motivated - helps them get a better view of how to handle things. It's always worked out well for me.I've always suggested that someone out of school do three job categories in order to give them an idea of how the "real world" works ... a gig in "fast food" to get an idea of the world's unrealistic expectations, a gig in transportation (be it taxi, bus or train) to have an opportunity to soak in the mindsets of various people, and some sort of office gig to take in the smell of the cube farm. These three help people to shed a lot of their own horsechit, and be grateful when they get that first REAL gig. :) You've had a few corkers, mate ... still with CBC? |
|
|
| (625917) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sat May 31 14:50:55 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Robert King on Sat May 31 13:29:39 2008. I agree with you to the extent that the guards themselves are caught in the middle. Unfortunately photographers have no choice but to report the guards every time and/or escalate this to the media - the problem is not going away by ignoring it.There is a lot more to the Union Station story and you had to be following the Flickr group to understand it fully. The media interest did not arise suddenly last week. There have been efforts to communicate with both Amtrak and Jones LaSalle ongoing for months. Amtrak returned the calls and responded very clearly that photography was permitted within the areas of Union Station that it controls. After some prodding a higher level manager of Jones LaSalle, Joan Malkowski, finally stated in writing (email) that photography was permitted in all public areas managed by them. Furthermore she promised (again in writing) that all security guards would be retrained with respect to the photography issue. Approximately beginning 2 weeks ago a group of photographers began entering Union Station, individually at random times to "test" whether or not Joan (Jones LaSalle) had kept their word. When it became apparant that she had not the issue was escalated to the media. Keep in mind these are not run of the mill railfan photographers - semi-pro and pro photographers are driving this effort as well as hobbyists that happen to be attorneys and/or politically connected. Besides the problem that guard faces on Monday morning - I am sure the meetings will not go well for Joan either for committing the company to a written photography policy and retraining of the guards only to be proven otherwise on TV!! As for the guards - here is a comment another guard made with respect to photography at a refinery where he worked. It is not Amtrak or Union Station related but it does give insight into the forces at play: For the past 10 years I have been a private security guard at an Ohio oil refinery. We patrol the area surrounding the refinery, including city streets. I have had many instances where I had to deal with photographers, both on and off the refinery's property. Lots of local college students like to take pictures of the refinery at night (lots of pretty lights and cool 30ft. flames coming off the smoke-stacks). It is company policy that no photographs are permitted to be taken of the facility, for both safety/security reasons, and for corporate privacy reasons. However, it is perfectly legal to take photographs of the facility if you are not on the refinery's property at the time. All the guards know this, but we have to try to stop them anyway. It's part of our procedure. Just like it is legal for you to take the pictures, it is legal for us to tell you that it is not (there is no law that says I can't lie to you about it). I can make any demand that I wish, including asking for ID, that you relinquish your film, or erase your pictures, even though you do not legally have to obey any of these. If you don't know that, that's your problem. If you do happen to be on company property, I can call the police and have you arrested for trespassing, otherwise, it is my job to try to harass you and convince you to stop taking pictures. Our best weapon in this fight is the taking down of your license plate number and informing you that the information will be forwarded to the FBI and the DHS (which it will). That usually scares people enough to want to get out of the area ASAP. |
|
|
| (625997) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Sat May 31 16:45:31 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat May 31 13:49:19 2008. Selkirk, your take on the issues is appreciated by more of us here than some would have you think. |
|
|
| (626003) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat May 31 16:53:53 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Bingham C50 on Sat May 31 16:45:31 2008. Thanks, guy! The good news is that when ya get to be MY age, you don't really care about what other people think. Heh. |
|
|
| (626079) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Robert King on Sat May 31 18:37:16 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Sat May 31 14:50:55 2008. I agree with what the other guard wrote completely - did you read what I was trying to explain? It's the same thing, had to do it to put myself through school and skate around a number of other significant obstacles in that job too.-Robert King |
|
|
| (626085) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sat May 31 18:55:35 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Robert King on Sat May 31 18:37:16 2008. That's why I said I agreed with you that the guards are caught in the middle of all this. I certainly don't envy them. Unfortunately there is no other way to document that there is a pattern of abuse in order to proceed against upper management. The confrontations will increase as more and more photographers become aware of their rights - and management will throw the guard under the bus in order to deflect blame. Catch-22. |
|
|
| (626087) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Robert King on Sat May 31 19:02:00 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Sat May 31 18:55:35 2008. What has to happen, to be effective, is that photographers push the building or facility managements hard that they want to see a proper policy change designed and implemented, that nobody wants to hear fluffy feel good statements from property managers who turn right back around and continue with the status quo; it has to be clear that nobody will be satisfied until there are results stemming from real action on the subject. Actually doing something is where property managers really get stuck, it seems.-Robert King |
|
|
| (626088) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sat May 31 19:07:42 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Robert King on Sat May 31 19:02:00 2008. That's precisely what the photographers are doing in the Union Station situation - there has been a concerted email and letter writing campaign directed at Jones LaSalle. This press coverage now puts them on notice that they are all alone on this issue - Amtrak is backing the photographers! |
|
|
| (626103) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by Robert King on Sat May 31 19:34:20 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat May 31 13:49:19 2008. I've got a few horror stories from the security job about the company, the clients, the public and policies getting out of hand. One of these days I should tell about the on the job assault where the computer was picked up and thrown at me or where I worked an extra four hours after the end of my shift - and then received a letter of reprimand...I'm started back at the CBC Television right when school finished, after the co-op there last summer. I'm really enjoying working there - going back to school worked out really well for me! -Robert King |
|
|
| (626113) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat May 31 19:54:35 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Robert King on Sat May 31 19:34:20 2008. They don't treat ya any better on the computer side of security either. Which brings me to the most important lesson of all ... as long as the paycheck don't bounce, you just takes yer lumps and hope for a brighter day. :)Glad to hear you're still making pictures fly through the air ... that's always its own challenge. Heh. Once again though, thanks for giving others here the other side of the perspective! |
|
|
| (627258) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by JBar387 on Mon Jun 2 17:38:33 2008, in response to Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 20:11:12 2008. LoL! Boneheads! |
|
|
| (627284) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Jun 2 18:03:10 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by Bingham C50 on Sat May 31 09:18:58 2008. I agree. In New York, LA, WDC, London, everywhere! |
|
|
| (627653) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Jun 3 08:36:51 2008, in response to Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 20:11:12 2008. Political pressure is coming:See the latest here Interview with Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC): "I'm astounded that Union Station would be declared private property, when we [Congress] issued the lease," As I have been saying this is more in line with what happened at Silver Springs - LaSalle does NOT own Union Station and they are are in deep crap with the press and the politicians because of their policy. |
|
|
| (627695) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Bob Andersen on Tue Jun 3 10:43:26 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by BMTLines on Tue Jun 3 08:36:51 2008. Excellent! |
|
|
| (627699) | |
Re: Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue Jun 3 10:49:08 2008, in response to Union Station Photographers Rights Issue Gets Press Attention, posted by BMTLines on Fri May 30 20:11:12 2008. Its time for Amtrak and its workers to rip up washington DC and all their BS. David Gunn is an ok guy, so he should lead them in rebuilding the government, because this is obviously out of control. Same chit happens in england, but those people let it slide, here in america, we don't take this type of chit. |
|
|
| (627737) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 12:20:48 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by BMTLines on Tue Jun 3 08:36:51 2008. Why does it have to be the most annoying liberal(s) taking up this fight? This is an ideal conservative cause, an overzealous government trampling on individual rights. |
|
|
| (627797) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Jun 3 13:18:14 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 12:20:48 2008. Frankly I don't care who takes up the fight as long as it is fought. It is becoming quite obvious that the current crop of conservatives cares more about perceptions of security than they do about freedom. |
|
|
| (627830) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Tue Jun 3 13:45:34 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 12:20:48 2008. Chris, what does it really matter WHO takes up the fight, as long as THE FIGHT IS TAKEN UP?(sigh) Look, either you want this nonsense to end, or you don't. |
|
|
| (627833) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Tue Jun 3 13:48:37 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by BMTLines on Tue Jun 3 13:18:14 2008. "It is becoming quite obvious that the current crop of conservatives cares more about perceptions of security than they do about freedom."And if some people can't or won't see that, nothing we say will make any difference or convince them otherwise. |
|
|
| (627834) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Tue Jun 3 13:50:09 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by BMTLines on Tue Jun 3 08:36:51 2008. Great, great news! |
|
|
| (627872) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 3 15:34:45 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 12:20:48 2008. Just for the record, it was your precious "conservatives" who STARTED this silliness. Osama already HAD the pictures of anything they wanted to blow up, and this whole diaper-wearing stuff is nothing but a side show. Your guys have CREATED the "overzealous government." :( |
|
|
| (627885) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jun 3 15:59:26 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 12:20:48 2008. Why does it have to be the most annoying liberal(s) taking up this fight? This is an ideal conservative cause, an overzealous government trampling on individual rights.Because the conservatives in DC betrayed such principles with their stupid knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, empowering every ill-educated wannabe fascist in America to spout nonsense at the public. |
|
|
| (627900) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:21:14 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by BMTLines on Tue Jun 3 13:18:14 2008. It is becoming quite obvious that the current crop of conservatives cares more about perceptions of security than they do about freedom.That's your own bias (and lots of biased media reports) skewering your opinion. Washington DC is run by Democrats. So is NYC. So are most major cities, where these sorts of infringements are taking place. The people whom you are touting as fighting for your cause are only doing so because they dislike the police. |
|
|
| (627903) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:22:21 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Bingham C50 on Tue Jun 3 13:45:34 2008. What nonsense? I don't want the left co-opting this battle for their own gain. |
|
|
| (627904) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 3 16:23:03 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 12:20:48 2008. because social conservatives AND fiscal conservatives while mouthing libertarian ideals end up voting for statist controls, viz, bans on sexual behaviors, attempts to circumvent bill of rights legal protections, drug laws both in general and the laws allowing confiscation of property ALLEGEDLY bought with drug profits-- a "taking" far more pernicious than EPD. |
|
|
| (627905) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:23:24 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jun 3 15:59:26 2008. Because the conservatives in DC betrayed such principles with their stupid knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, empowering every ill-educated wannabe fascist in America to spout nonsense at the public.A crock of shit. |
|
|
| (627906) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 3 16:23:51 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:21:14 2008. Bush and the executive branch are DEMOCRATS? Wowsers! Man oh man, you're smoking crack! :)
|
|
|
| (627907) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:24:17 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Bingham C50 on Tue Jun 3 13:48:37 2008. Well God forbid someone challenges that ridiculous assertion ... |
|
|
| (627908) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Jun 3 16:24:58 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jun 3 15:59:26 2008. Because the conservatives in DC betrayed such principles with their stupid knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, empowering every ill-educated wannabe fascist in America to spout nonsense at the public.I couldn't have said it better. your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (627939) | |
Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Tue Jun 3 16:51:18 2008, in response to Re: Union Station Photo Rights Issue Gets POLITICAL, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jun 3 16:22:21 2008. "What nonsense?"Um, the unlawful harrassment of photographers? "I don't want the left co-opting this battle for their own gain." Good-minded people are fighting to protect our legal right to take pictures in public places wihout fear or intimidation, and you have a problem with that because they just might be (shudder) "liberals." I'm sorry, but it is getting more and more difficult to understand your attitude and mindset regarding this issue. Especially considering you are one of the more prolific rail photographers in this forum, not to mention one of the most outspoken opponents of the harrassment. It is puzzling and disturbing. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
