Author: Geoff Flight
Posted: 2009-01-27 at 19:03:27
Like so many gun-loving Americans you get in some sort of frenzy at the
thought of a country that bans them. And then you look at the 50,000 gun
deaths in your country and the <100 in ours. I just wonder if there is a
connection. And then the crime rate which is also vastly lower. Also a
dictatorship goes against the will of the people. Aussies support the ban
(mostly) and don't want it changed. See we like going to Maccas knowing that
not every patron is armed. We like knowing that the brawl outside the pub is
not going to turn into a gunfight.
And we aren't talking about 'underwear photos'. That simplistic term implies
professional model shoots. We are talking about upskirt photos where consent
is not given and is a clear invasion of privacy.
I have been a long-time photographer myself including weddings etc. I get
frustrated at the increasing limits on photography but I cant understand how
what is essentially an invasion of pricay can be merely 'tasteless'. Upskirt
photos here are banned but long before that they were considered
unacceptable.
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Pete Theisen
Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2009 10:17 AM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] Stupid law of the year goes to congressman Peter King (R)
New York
Geoff Flight wrote:
Hi Geoff!
It certainly doesn't take anything to get you into ad hominem outrage.
Australia, and any country that bans private ownership of handguns by
law-abiding citizens, is a dictatorship. It may be dictatorship by
committee, but it is dictatorship nevertheless.
It is interesting that you seem to think that a person "once a doctor",
as you put it, should have some ethical restraint on his or her opinion
of dictatorship and freedom.
In addition to having been once a doctor I was once a professional
photographer. Unless the law has changed, and I have not heard that it
has, it is OK to photograph underwear wearing persons. If they are
recognizable you have to have their permission to publish the pictures
but not to take them. It is tasteless, but not "not OK".
> You have an interesting description of 'dictatorship' and 'freedom'. I
> believe you were once a doctor. Perhaps you should review the professional
> ethics section and see if it gives you any advice on these matters.
>> Breaching privacy but not being identifiable is hardly ok. Some things
are
>> just wrong - such as this. The camera sound idea tho is just absurd.
> Perhaps if you live in a dictatorship such as Australia or anywhere in
> the UK, but we have freedom of the press here. Thus, underwear pictures
> per se are not banned. It is tasteless, however.
>
>> If the skirt wearer has clean underwear on and is not recognizable in
>> the picture then it is merely tasteless.
--
Regards,
Pete
[excessive quoting removed by server]