What First Amendment? Schwarzenegger signs new anti-paparazzi law

[leroy]

Yep....I mean they elected Ronald Regan.

yes, that was sarcastic

I agree with Canynracer here. The folks in Kalefornia have done some pretty good things in the past. Sadly, there have been some serious mistakes in judgement.

As Crimsonauto opined:

Originally Posted by leroy

The people of the State of Kalefornia deserve better.

Actually, they don't. People deserve the government they elect and Kalifornia has a history of electing some of the biggest idiots on the planet...

Sadly, they did elect Jerry Brown and Gray Davis -- two great buffoons -- both Democrats. The only two democrats elected since 1967. That aint a bad average.

Now, Kalefornia seems to be closely divided between real people and nuts; with the battle raging back and forth -- all elections are hotly contested. There is an additional plague on Kalefornia due to their State Supreme Court and the US 9 th Circuit that slaps the citizens around pretty regularly with rabidly partizan rulings that thwart the will of the people at the ballot box. They also (like all of us) seem to be swamped by demigogues telling lies to get elected, or folks with no core values who can simply be lead around by others -- that's exactly what is happening to the "Governator" in my opinion.

Folks need to look deeply into the policies, beliefs (yes, beliefs!!), passed experience, and actions of those they choose to vote for. They do make a difference. Those views can be translated into governmental policies and law very quickly -- just as the "Governator" has done. Right here in Tennessee; we elected a fella by the name of Sundquist. He claimed to be Republican. He was simply a crook polititian from Missouri who used the vehicle of the Republican party to be a candidate for office. He was neither a Tennesseean or a Republican -- he was a disgrace --- again, no core values. That precipitated the election of a fella by the name of Bredesen. He said he was a conservative Democrat. He is not -- he is a yankee carpetbagger liberal who made lots of money (by the way, making lots of money aint necessarily a bad thing as long as it has been done honestly --- its called capitalism. Its a great thing!!!) and wanted to run the state. He did a pretty good job the first term -- the second term was a lot different -- the truth came out. The sad fact is that Bredesen, sorry as he is, is a credit to Sundquist. Again, its the old problem of character and truth-telling. Also, the problem transends political party -- both Dems and Republicans are guilty.

At the national level, there was a fella by the name of Clinton who told the people of the USA that he wasn't like the "left wing nut" Demorats.

He was elected on that platform. He was right. No Democrat before him had sold out the USA to as great an extent as he did with regards to foreign nations. He made China a real military threat to the USA.

The "nuts" openly said who they were and couldnt get elected except in the northeast and left coast. Clinton lied about his core beliefs and did get elected . Fast forward to 2008. Barak Noboma said the same thing with the "hope and change" baloney. Another lie --- look at how the "hope and change" is turned into Chicago machine politics at its worst.

Be careful who you choose to vote for. Character does matter.

Food for thought.

Kind regards,

LEROY

[G27]

It factors in when a picture of the child is taken in reference to allot of circumstances.It can also apply when a picture of an adult is taken that could hurt a child.

What about pics that are taken during separations,or divorces....

Well, there's already a ruling in place to protect children, as you stated above (I haven't looked into it at all, but I suspect that ruling stemmed from a child pornography case).

That being said, unless someone can point out a concrete example where this law will 'protect the children' more than the previous court decisions, as well as outlining reasoning as to why this reduction in the people's rights is 'beneficial', I'm all ears (err, eyes).

Maybe I'm an idealist, but after seeing how the government - at every level - seems to screw even good decisions up, I have a hard time thinking that an impingement upon people's rights is somehow A Good Thing.

[strickj]

I'm still not positive that pictures are covered under the 1st.

I know that I cant take my camera anywhere I want,and take pics....and I've tried...

If someone can provide the source to say it is,I'll gladly change my mind on the whole thing!

[G27]

I'm still not positive that pictures are covered under the 1st.

I know that I cant take my camera anywhere I want,and take pics....and I've tried...

If someone can provide the source to say it is,I'll gladly change my mind on the whole thing!

From First Amendment to the United

States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."

You only have to look at the various court cases over the years to see that photographs have been incorporated into 1A wrt Freedom of the Press.

[leroy]

I'm still not positive that pictures are covered under the 1st.

I know that I cant take my camera anywhere I want,and take pics....and I've tried...

If someone can provide the source to say it is,I'll gladly change my mind on the whole thing!

Check this link out: USATODAY.com - New digital camera? Know how, where you can use it

When my son was younger we spent lots of time on public property taking railfan pictures. The old rules were " if you can see it, you can take a picture of it." some LE and RR personnel didnt like it; but they couldnt do anything about it. As far as the railroad thing was concerned, when you got on their property (thats private property), you were tresspassing -- they didnt like that and would prosecute you for it -- thats another issue. You have no right to tresspass on someone elses property and do anything; including taking pictures.

That being said, there are places where you cant take pictures. They are usually inside the gates of a company that does proprietary things (or simply has a "no picture taking" policy -- real "intellectual property"), concerts (alledged "intellectual property" -- hehehe), other places where you pay for the priveledge of entry and has a "no picture taking policy".

RE: Sensitive areas, dams, power houses, nuclear power plants, defense facilities, etc.

Since 9/11 there are many who will tell you that you cant take pictures of certain things from public property. I'm not sure that they can legally do anything but try to intimidate you as long as you are on public property. I worked for a company (a large utility) that would immediately investigate any "suspicious" picture taking. They sent the security guys out and asked bunches of questions.

Hope this helps.

Kind regrds,

LEROY

[wjh2657]

How do you suppose Obama and Pelosi forced him to do this? We need some in depth research here. After all The Gov is a Republican and we all know that they wouldn't do anything that wasn't Constitutional. Let's connect this to the national Democrats.

[leroy]

How do you suppose Obama and Pelosi forced him to do this? We need some in depth research here. After all The Gov is a Republican and we all know that they wouldn't do anything that wasn't Constitutional. Let's connect this to the national Democrats.

Pure speculation on my part---they probably threatened to have Maria publically spank him --- remember, she is a "Kennedy Demorat" -- They may have also threatened to have Hillary hold him while it all happened. . What a weenie!! I had such high hopes for the "governator" -- looks like he is just another weenie, henpecked mommas boy --- how sad!!! Go on back home to Austria and get behind your mommie's skirttail.

Keep up the good work.

Kind regrds,

LEROY