Re: Fine over mobile topless pictures

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Coccozella's Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Harold on December 04, 2004 at 15:45:05:

In Reply to: Fine over mobile topless pictures posted by CandidCamera on December 01, 2004 at 12:28:10:

: A SYDNEY man was fined $500 today for taking photographs of topless women on Coogee Beach with his mobile phone.
: It is believed to be the first time anyone has been prosecuted over such photography.

He was probably charged with one of those "disturbing the peace" type laws... being a nuisance, etc. The trouble with taking pictures with a phone rather than a real camera is that it is now percieved as spying rather than just taking a picture since it is still in people's minds that a phone is not supposed to take a picture and if you do, it is being done secretly.

You need a proper camera with a telephoto lens and you need to behave in an un-obvious way... spend time shooting lots of other things - and when you do shoot the picture you want, it is quick and smooth without lingering. And you should never look like you just took a picture. It should look like you just panned over the scene and then shot something else. It's all in how you act. If confronted never ever act guilty. If you feel guilty then don't do the damn shooting.

: Mackenzie told the court he had agonised over his actions.

Right, if you go to court just play the part you need to to get it over with -- unless you want to fight the big fight over the right to photograph in public, which you will win if you take it to a higher court and stage a proper defense. But if you shoot with a phone camera you will not be able to argue the legitimacy of your "photography" now will you?

: "I really feel like I've blemished 25 years of being a decent person," he said.

Good line. Write that down.

: Mackenzie faced three months in jail, but Magistrate Lee Gilmore instead fined him $500, warning him that "women are not objects of decoration for men's gratification".

No women are not DEFINITIVELY objects of decoration for men's gratification. But people, both men and women, DO play those roles for each other from time to time as part of our sexuality. There are times when a man WILL view a woman in those terms, but it is temporary, only for the moment --- he is fully capably of recognizing her as a full and equal person. Just because you shoot a picture of a woman who you think looks nice and you admire her in the image later does not mean she has been degraded in any way. To think that is such a knee-jerk reaction.

: Mackenzie's Nokia camera phone will be destroyed.

Why destroyed? That's stupid. Make him get another phone etc. Dah!

-Harold

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Password :

(type this password into the password box)
Subject:

Comments:
: : A SYDNEY man was fined $500 today for taking photographs of topless women on Coogee Beach with his mobile phone. : : It is believed to be the first time anyone has been prosecuted over such photography. : He was probably charged with one of those "disturbing the peace" type laws... being a nuisance, etc. The trouble with taking pictures with a phone rather than a real camera is that it is now percieved as spying rather than just taking a picture since it is still in people's minds that a phone is not supposed to take a picture and if you do, it is being done secretly. : You need a proper camera with a telephoto lens and you need to behave in an un-obvious way... spend time shooting lots of other things - and when you do shoot the picture you want, it is quick and smooth without lingering. And you should never look like you just took a picture. It should look like you just panned over the scene and then shot something else. It's all in how you act. If confronted never ever act guilty. If you feel guilty then don't do the damn shooting. : : : Mackenzie told the court he had agonised over his actions. : Right, if you go to court just play the part you need to to get it over with -- unless you want to fight the big fight over the right to photograph in public, which you will win if you take it to a higher court and stage a proper defense. But if you shoot with a phone camera you will not be able to argue the legitimacy of your "photography" now will you? : : "I really feel like I've blemished 25 years of being a decent person," he said. : Good line. Write that down. : : Mackenzie faced three months in jail, but Magistrate Lee Gilmore instead fined him $500, warning him that "women are not objects of decoration for men's gratification". : No women are not DEFINITIVELY objects of decoration for men's gratification. But people, both men and women, DO play those roles for each other from time to time as part of our sexuality. There are times when a man WILL view a woman in those terms, but it is temporary, only for the moment --- he is fully capably of recognizing her as a full and equal person. Just because you shoot a picture of a woman who you think looks nice and you admire her in the image later does not mean she has been degraded in any way. To think that is such a knee-jerk reaction. : : Mackenzie's Nokia camera phone will be destroyed. : Why destroyed? That's stupid. Make him get another phone etc. Dah! : -Harold

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: