From: christina battle (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2007 - 17:52:19 PDT
dudes. this thread is driving me mental. people should be able to document
the world when & where & how they wanna.
congrats on the victory nyc! that law or rule or whatever is was was total
bullshit.
c
On 8/3/07 8:39 PM, "Jim Carlile" <email suppressed> wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with reasonable permit rules for groups. Next time a
> large group of "filmakers' is outside your flat making noise and blocking the
> sidewalk, let me hear you scream about free speech.
>
> I am just amazed at the lack of clear thinking on this issue. Witness:
>
>
>> >(REPLYING TO JIM CARLILE. BTW Jim, I do sort of admire your lone
>> >struggle on the frameworks list. You've given many of us the
>> >opportunity to mouth off on this topic which might otherwise have died.)
>
>> >The law does indeed say that certain activities (i.e. 2 people, sans
>> >tripod, for 30 minutes) DO NOT require a permit, and is thus a clear
>> >right-to-film rule, and maybe that's better than a rules vacuum in
>> >which the police can harrass anyone.
>
>> >A better solution would be to order the police to stop harrassing
>> >people in a rules vacuum. Why do bullies get to make the rules?
>
> But there are pre-existing rules. There's no rules vacuum. Police were also
> invoking other rules to justify their harassment. That can't happen any more.
> It's a good deal in general.
>
>
>> >If a guy came into your house and punched you, would you like a new
>> >law that says, "no one may punch you unless they have been in your
>> >house for 30 minutes?"
>
> That's private property-- a stupid analogy.
>
>
>> >And again, why would police respect the "new" right to film under
>> >certain conditions, when they didn't respect the previous right to
>> >film anywhere, anytime?
>
> There was no previous right to film anywhere, anytime. That's a myth.
>
>
>> >And you, Jim, seem to be confusing "arbitrary" with "unpredictable."
>> >30 minutes is arbitrary. 2 people is arbitrary. Just because it's
>> >written down doesn't make it non-arbitrary.
>
> Two people is a group. Localities have a right to require filming permits for
> all sorts of reasons. It's that simple. It's not a wholesale restriction on
> rights.
>
>
>> >The first amendment doesn't set out permit regulations and limits for
>> >free speech. The first amendment specifically limits government's
>> >power to enact laws that restrict free speech. There's a big
>> >difference. (And, I might add, the one trumps the other).
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about. It's not a free speech issue. It
> actually has nothing to do with "speech," it's the right of assembly, if
> anything, because these rules only apply to GROUPS in public places. If you
> were correct, then why do courts uphold parade permit requirements? It's a
> similar problem.
>
>
>> >To make it clearer: at one point, in Vancouver where I live, it
>> >became almost impossible to rent an apartment if you had a cat. A
>> >bunch of people (clearly otherwise idle) launched a class-action and
>> >forced a court ruling that said that cat-owners, as a class, could
>> >not be discriminated against.
>
>> >The result? Landlords were forced to come up with actual REASONS to
>> >keep out cat owners. One place I looked at, the landlord said "Cat
>> >hair clogs up the vents."
>
>> >In other words, when there's a legal decision or new rule, those who
>> >have power can continue the same behaviour in new forms.
>
>> >I.e., under these new rules, the police can still harrass any
>> >filmmaker they want. If the filmmaker whips out the new law and
>> >tries to defend themselves, the police could easily say, "Well,
>> >you're blocking the sidewalk," or whatever BS they used to say
>> >previously - when there was no restriction on filming.
>
> Not any more. The new rules allow free activity. And your analogy is
> ridiculous. Unlike landlords, there's no qualification on these rules. And
> again, there have ALWAYS been restrictions on filming in NYC. The problem was
> that the rules were enforced arbitrarily and against the wrong parties.
>
>
>> > ---They are not unconstitutional. "Artists" can do whatever they
>> > want to,
>> > for unlimited times. That's a good break. Only crews need
>> > permits-- and only
>> > after 30 minutes. No one's dictating content.
>
>> >Why shouldn't groups of artists have the same rights as solo
>> >artists? Baffling. The constitution makes no such distinction. (Hey,
>> >I'm Canadian and even I know that).
>
> Because they are groups that clog up the streets! And they can still do it for
> limited times without restraint. That's a fabulous deal compared to anywhere
> else I've even heard of!
>
>
>> >And dictating content is irrelevant - I think you would agree, for
>> >example, that shutting down a newspaper would be just as repressive
>> >as dictating its content.
>
> No one's shutting anything down. I suggest as an artist you take some logic
> classes. Inspiration isn't everything, obviously-- your analogies are
> ridiculous. I feel like I'm watching FOX news.
>
> The bottom line is that these new rules actually loosen many previous
> requirements. Don't expect too much from this re-hearing, either-- most of you
> guys won't be satisfied until there are NO rules regarding filming on public
> property. That ain't gonna happen. They might drop the insurance requirement,
> or extend the no-permit times, but that's about it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com
> <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> .
> __________________________________________________________________ For info on
> FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.