3. no, it should affect how much protection the photographer has in the freedom of expression. But what should affect it is how compliant and polite the photographer and people involved are with the regular users of the park. The report mentioned that in earlier complaints, the photographers would sometimes take over the park areas, stalk park goers, invading their privacy, and also taking pictures of them and breaking their immersion. While these complaints do have merit, I do believe that there is another solution that, while limiting the photographer in parks, could work better than placing fines and fees for permits. The park could instead weigh the amount of freedom of expression protection by placing penalties on the photographers that
…show more content…
From this right, and given that a park is normally public property, this right contradicts the ordinance passed, as the right says that the town shouldn’t be able to pass any rights that dictates what a photograph can or cannot photograph within a public area, which I’m surmising also includes the twin oaks park. This would make the ordinance unlawful in that case. The ordinance would only stand if the park were private property, in which the town would be able to set any rules about photography as long as it did not outright remove the right …show more content…
Does the first amendment apply? I would say yes in any case, but in the link that I mentioned, firstamendmentcenter.org, it appears that there are some requirements for the photography to be protected by the first amendment. I’m listing them for thoroughness. The link states that the photograph must have “(1) ‘a message to be communicated: and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.’ Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group (1995)” (First Amendment Center). now, as the image is able to be seen while reviewing the case, the question becomes: is there a message? And an audience intended? I say yes. In my perspective, the message appears to be that on this day that the photograph is taken, it is a special day for the people involved, clearly for the bride, and she wishes to celebrate and capture that moment to remember it in the future. The audience, clearly, would be the bride and the groom of the wedding. Now, I could be mistake on this, but I remember a saying that is often used in photography “a picture is worth a thousand words” or so. So, it isn’t hard to think of a message within a photograph if there isn’t one present already, and seeing as how the photographer made this commercially, as stated in the case, it also isn’t hard to imagine who the audience is for the photograph. Check and check. Based on these requirements, from
From this right, and given that a park is normally public property, this right contradicts the ordinance passed, as the right says that the town shouldn’t be able to pass any rights that dictates what a photograph can or cannot photograph within a public area, which I’m surmising also includes the twin oaks park. This would make the ordinance unlawful in that case. The ordinance would only stand if the park were private property, in which the town would be able to set any rules about photography as long as it did not outright remove the right …show more content…
Does the first amendment apply? I would say yes in any case, but in the link that I mentioned, firstamendmentcenter.org, it appears that there are some requirements for the photography to be protected by the first amendment. I’m listing them for thoroughness. The link states that the photograph must have “(1) ‘a message to be communicated: and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.’ Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group (1995)” (First Amendment Center). now, as the image is able to be seen while reviewing the case, the question becomes: is there a message? And an audience intended? I say yes. In my perspective, the message appears to be that on this day that the photograph is taken, it is a special day for the people involved, clearly for the bride, and she wishes to celebrate and capture that moment to remember it in the future. The audience, clearly, would be the bride and the groom of the wedding. Now, I could be mistake on this, but I remember a saying that is often used in photography “a picture is worth a thousand words” or so. So, it isn’t hard to think of a message within a photograph if there isn’t one present already, and seeing as how the photographer made this commercially, as stated in the case, it also isn’t hard to imagine who the audience is for the photograph. Check and check. Based on these requirements, from