no photography, no questions, no rights

Major Variola (ret) mv at cdc.gov
Thu Mar 25 12:54:52 PST 2004


At 02:05 PM 3/25/04 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
>"In the Brinworld of Phonecams this is a nice challenge for the
>freelancer...
>Fuck you, Anderson III"
>
>All he did was raise the prices of said photos, correct? Shit...I
should get
>on out there and make myself a fortune...

In practice, because markets are robust, and anonymity not so hard, yes.
:-)

However this is a classic case of the State using *violence* to
(wrongly) prohibit
behavior which is in fact protected.

You *don't* have a right to take pictures inside *my* walls if its
prohibited, since
its private property.   In my house or store, I can call for the State's
violence
against you if you do things I don't consent to.

But on public land, or from a private building in the area, no one
(incl.
the State's twerps like Anderson III) can prohibit such behavior,
as there is no right to privacy in public.

Excellent (and 'punkly) point about the market for information, though.

PS: I'd say the Streisand vs. Coastal Photographer lawsuit was a good
example of someone trying to abuse the State's violence by convincing
it that the Photog was somehow doing a wrong.  In that case the
Judge correctly decided that Streisand was full of shit.





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list