Re: protest nyc's proposed film and photo law Thurs Aug 2 Union Sq

From: flick harrison (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Aug 06 2007 - 10:03:23 PDT

On 5-Aug-07, at 7:10 PM, Jim Carlile wrote:
> And this "picnickers with cameras will now be breaking the law" is
> a ridiculously phony argument against the rules. It's disingenuous,
> too, because the "artists" on this list could care less about
> picnickers (the ACLU, maybe.)

Would you quit dismissing this example and actually say:

DO YOU or DO YOU NOT support rules that make it illegal for
picnickers to have cell-phone cameras?

RIGHT NOW you are supporting those rules.

Dismissing the example = supporting the rule.

That's what the rule says. You support it.

Do YOU care? Or are you just using debate-club techniques to throw
away an extremely important point? Restrictions on people's 1st-
amendment right to document their own lives is obviously of EXTREME
CONCERN to artists, but should be of concern to EVERYONE.

ATFK, Jim.

Whether or not I, let alone all "the 'artists' on this list" actually
"care" is not only wildly speculative (and thus a weak-thinker's
argument) but entirely irrelevant (double-plus-bad weakthink).

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.