blanket criminal tresspass

[baba]

To the citizens' of Vermont.

I just learned, via the net, of the plight of a young man named Nief.

Apparently his demanding his salary has branded him with what is the same as the big RED A.(Scarlet Letter)

I realize that I  am not in Vermont, I'm in California.  However, I am not Stupid. I have a box full of college degrees, retired law enforcement (Capt), college prof., and most recently the proud teacher of the handicapped (some of whom are mentally ill).

This "universal trespass order" would be in an Honest Court of Law tossed out.  I'm unsure of what exact material your law enforcement and merchant community are using for brains, or what their legal staff is smoking, but it must be some good material indeed.   I'm sure there are some San Franciscan's who'd love to get the brand.

In short, banning a person / exclusion from anywhere, without fair trial is a violation of a document you may have heard of:  "The U.S. Constitution"  also the "Bill of Rights".

As a special ed teacher with credentials in criminal justice and street experience I'd be more than happy to fly out to your cozy part of the empire and explain the meaning of liberty.  I could even bring along some of my emotionally disturbed students along and let them gaze upon true "crazy."

For this supposed "legal" exclusion is indeed true crazy.

 

Sincerely,  babaphoto@juno.com

[Undead Molly]

Well... I've lived here and been on and around Church Street all of my life. I've had coutless friends who work and own businesses on the marketplace. I've taken photos on Church Street, most of the people I know have taken hundreds of photos and even videos on Church Street habitually and without incident.

My boyfriend and I are artists, and most of our friends are in arts and media here in Vermont. We all have very strong feelings about protecting civil liberties. The conclusion most of us have reached about this story is that a lot has been left out! The whole thing just kind of smacks of a disorderly conduct case that is trying to disguise itself as a first amendment rights case. I'm not saying that's what it is, but that's the impression we are left with. I've been reading photography message board threads in which many photographers (obviously staunch defenders of photographers' rights) from around the country have been spreading the piece within their communities and are wondering and concluding the same.

I really hope that Ken Picard does a follow-up piece to this story, because it feels oddly, bafflingly incomplete the way it is. It just doesn't add up to a complete picture. It seemed heavily one-sided with only a perfunctory sliver of input from the perspective of the Church Street businesses. I hope that other people with additional first hand knowledge of the case come forward with comment because we would certainly love to fill in some of the blanks.

[Morganna]

Actually, I think this guy's referring to something that happened to Alex Neif back in 2004/2005.  Not the photographer guy.   I feel bad for the photographer.  He's just taking photos of things anyone walking down the street would see.

He won't be able to eat in any of the many fine establishments on Church Street!! (see how I got it back on topic there? )

[Undead Molly]

I would feel bad for the photographer if I hadn't read so many accounts of peoples' bad run-ins with him. There have been a lot of young women on Facebook sharing credible stories about him over the past couple days. The stories do not paint a portrait of a man who isn't just innocently snapping photos. It seems a lot of them have been really disturbed and felt threatened by his assertiveness and belligerence.

[Morganna]

Honestly, the reports I've read, which are not extensive, make him look like someone who is sick of getting crap for practicing his art, and is digging in his heels and refusing to be given any more.

Candid photography involves going out and taking pictures of people and places randomly.  It is, by its nature, not something you tell people you're doing in advance because that changes how they behave.  It is a completely legitimate art form.

*I* have it from credible people I actually know, who know him, to are just as positive that he's really a decent guy who is really just trying to practice his art in a completely legal way.

I, frankly, am getting really tired of how over sensitive people are becoming about so many things, and this particular issue just happens to illustrate it perfectly.  The people who are "bothered" by this are -standing out in public on a public thoroughfare-.  They are being photographed by no less than ten security cameras the whole time they're out there.  They're being watched by all manner of strange people who tend to congregate on Church street.  And they this pick -this guy- to be creeped out by? Come on, have you SEEN him? He's like the most average looking person I've ever seen walking around Church street.

Really really think hard about this, if the photographer in question were female, would this even be coming up?  I don't believe for one minute it would be.

He's a photographic hobbyist, and the proof of that is in the fact that he has not only managed to successfully sell some of his images to the local press, but that he posts many of them up on the web.  He's -good-.  He takes very good candid and spontaneous images that capture a real feeling about the place.  Church street is lively and dynamic and energetic, and he manages to capture the liveliness and character of the place.  And instead of just accepting him as part of the atmosphere, people are giving him ten loads of crap and harassing him, with cops going to his WORKPLACE to question him, and demanding he delete an image that was in no way personal, and getting all creeped out because they want to assume the worst about him.  And in the end, it's pretty damn clear he's not broken any laws at all.  So they come after him with a "you can't come into our stores" order.

It's just wrong.  He's being treated badly, and I strongly suspect he's not reacting very well to it after it having gone on for so long.  Yeah, he's belligerent.  You try telling me what to do with my property when I'm not doing anything illegal with it in a public place, you just see how belligerent *I* get.  There's no law that a person has to be likable or pleasant or polite or reasonable.  If there were, the jails would be even more over crowded than they are now.

As far as I've been able to determine, he has never gone up to anyone on the street and been aggressive or belligerent towards them.  I openly admit that there are likely many instances I know nothing about because I am hardly completely on top of this situation, so this could be factually inaccurate, but every instance of hostile confrontation with him that I've heard described has involved someone going up TO HIM and trying to tell him what to do.  Perhaps couched in more civil language, and perhaps not greeted with grace, but all I've heard (thus far) is that people are -going up to him-.  He's not going up to -anyone- and being hostile towards them.

I'm getting sick of women who get creeped out so easily.  I have no doubt that the young women you've heard telling stories very faithfully believe their point of view and are reporting it exactly as it appeared to them.  I am not convinced that he has done anything really wrong, though.  Have you even stopped to consider for a moment what -his- perspective of their conversations might have been?

[Undead Molly]

I wonder, why is he being singled out when other photographers/videographers have been able to operate on the marketplace without problem? Have any other photographers ever been banned?

[Morganna]

That I don't know, and it's a reasonable question.

I suspect the answer is that he actually hangs out on Church street.  His being there isn't just a one-off for a specific project, but an ongoing passion. So people see him more often, see him taking more photos, and make assumptions about what he might be doing there.  The stuff he's taking pictures of aren't really appearing anywhere (though the article I read says he very occasionally sells an image to a local paper).  I think people tend to think the worst about folks, and they're assuming his photography is creepy, where a film crew, or even someone with a video camera who shows up for a day or two, isn't thought of at all.  He's there a lot, apparently.

It's really a shame, though, that the real issues here are buried under the "she's uncomfortable" "he's doing art" back and forth that I keep seeing discussed (and that I've participated in).

The blanket banning from establishments was initially intended as a deterrent to troublemakers, shoplifters, and drunks.  It has over the years been expanded on at least a couple of occasions to include anyone a single manager doesn't like, or someone that people think is "creepy".  How long do you think such a blanket banning of folks would stick around if they started putting people who appear to be of middle eastern descent?  Or what about if they started banning people with tats (I know, that wouldn't happen, this is a what if exercise)?

The thing is, this blanket banning isn't really a single establishment exercising its right to refuse service to anyone.  A large group of merchants actually have an agreement that if one establishment doesn't like someone, then they will ALL refuse to allow that person in, and if that person shows up in one of those establishments, they can be ARRESTED for criminal trespass.  But no one vets the reasons why people end up on the list.  You can end up on the list when you haven't even committed a single crime anywhere in or near any of the establishments.  Most of the businesses who participate don't even know why people are on the list.  They don't send around photos or descriptions of the "offenders" so enforcement of the list is pretty much impossible.  What might have sounded like a good idea when it was discussed doesn't seem to be panning out in practice.  There's been no serious effort to figure out a way to quantify if it has even been successful for its original intended purpose, vandalism and shoplifting deterrence.

But I do think that the minute it was used to bully two (at least) people who have not actually committed a single crime or caused any truly serious disturbance anywhere near any of the establishments, they lost whatever gains they may have actually been making.

[Undead Molly]

I don't really understand the philosophy behind many moves the Marketplace has made over the past decade. They keep making it harder and harder for independent businesses to survive, so they're being replaced one by one with stupid chain stores.

I wish everyone could start a second shopping district. We could get back North Country Books and Scribbles and put the Peace and Justice store into a more viable location. No Old Navys or Starbucks allowed. Maybe Pine Street will become that someday and Church Street can just be the big, soulless strip mall it seems to be turning into.

[tonyo]

Why are all these posts about a photographer appearing on a forum about food ? Well since I read it, here is my 2 cents:
1.  It seems the term artist is trown around way too liberally.
2.  This guy needs to respect people's right to privacy

 

[Morganna]

Tony,

People have no right to privacy when they are standing on a city street or public forum.

None, nada, period.  This is a very solidly determined legal precedent.  This man is not taking photos of anything that any person walking down Church street wouldn't be able to see with their own eyes.  He's not taking photos of anything that the -security cameras- on Church street aren't able to see.

And this guy IS an artist.  I've seen his work online.  He's done college work in artistic photography (I don't know if he has a degree).  He exhibits his work.  I know people personally who know him and say he's actually a pretty sweet guy, and they're irritated this is happening to him.

But all of that aside, here in the US, people have NO right to privacy on a city street.  Nothing he is doing is any more intrusive or rude than the people who just hang out on the street people watching.

[Suzanne Podhaizer]

TonyO - In answer to your question, I've left up a few non-food-related posts in the "miscellaneous" category because we don't have a forum for other topics yet, and I figured that as long as the discussions are civil, they're for the good.

[Morganna]

My husband wrote what I think is a pretty interesting blog post about this issue (as it came up in discussions with friends).  He's thinking more about the underlying complexities of the issues.  My personal bias aside, I think he's touched on it pretty well.

Here's a link to his blog so you can read it yourself:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/frank-j-perricone/civil-rights-versus-civil-rights/367242311723

[tonyo]

I hear ya sister !

[tonyo]

I can tell you this much, if I am on a public street and someone starts taking pictures of me/my family without my permission I GUARANTEE I will put an end to it no matter what the government has to say about my right to privacy or lack thereof.  I sure as hell have the right to question someone that makes me/my family feel uncomfortable and I would hope that any photographer/artist whether legit or not would respect that.  Please note that I am speaking in general terms and have ZERO direct knowledge of him and/or his work.  My comment about the term "artist" being used liberally was not directed at him personally.  It is more of a general observation, kind of like calling anyone that cooks a "chef".  Hard to define but based on some of the garbage posing as art (and food for that matter !), I think it is a subject at least worth discussing.  At the end of the day, this individual may have great intentions and yield great results, however, I hope he keeps it in balance and understands that some may be bothered by his actions. 

[Undead Molly]

So do you guys think that upskirting and downblousing are okay so long as the subject is in public?