Having some inclination to photography, one will obviously hear or read about issues that deal with security. Particularly how photographers are usually denied the rights to taking photographs of certain places. Of course normal people would find it unfortunate, but ultimately couldn’t really care less about the plights of these photographers.<\/p>\n
Photographers see these incidents as a big deal and never take them lightly, which is understandable – especially if they depended on it for a living.<\/p>\n
However, when taking everything in the context of terrorism in the US, I can’t help but think that indeed, the terrorists have won. Fear has crippled the nation so much that it is becoming ridiculous… or is it?<\/p>\n
What I’ve noticed is that though indeed there might have been unconstitutional to arbitrarily decide on which rights are allowed to photographers on specific places, I can’t help but think that sometimes any specialized group tends to merely think in the context of their own little worlds… in this case it’s the photographers. But in no way am I attacking them, since I too, like taking pictures. And I certainly want to be able to take pictures anytime and anywhere I want.<\/p>\n\n
That’s why I mentioned “specialized” groups. It may be in the form of parents who overprotect their children, activists who take themselves to seriously, religious zealots who like preaching unreasonable doctrines, governments who want to keep tabs and control everyone, etc. etc. As you can see, if we were part of any group in general, of course we would see our actions justified in that little world we live in.<\/p>\n
We are all part of at least one of these groups, that fact is unavoidable – that’s why I would never say that there is a right or wrong. Because everything can<\/em> be justified depending where you are coming from. Even killing<\/em> someone can be justified to some people if they went through some sort of extreme experience that led them to do it. Of course I don’t agree with that last statement, but I understand what it’s trying to say, and am not going to contest it for now.<\/p>\n Sorry for taking a detour, but with the above arguments in mind, let us go back to the whole “terrorism wins” issue.<\/p>\n The question was raised when I read this article<\/a>, which is one of many I’ve seen coming through the RSS feed channels.<\/p>\n To sum everything up, when constitutional rights are used to deal with “gray areas,” it can be a double-edged sword. It’s certainly good for people to be well informed of their rights – especially to prevent them being victims whenever there’s an “abuse of authority.” But can also be abused by those it protects.<\/p>\n Think about it: in almost all acts of terrorism, do you actually think they came in guns a-blazin’ and took something by force? Not quite – usually they exploit whatever “right” they have as humans to get past security… then<\/em> they open the can of worms – which can be guns a-blazin’ or in 911’s case, plastic knives a-flailin’ (assuming that’s what really happened)<\/p>\n In the articles I’ve read, we have people (photographers) publicly criticizing authority. And in this particular article (and others like it)<\/a> I really don’t know which side to take anymore. It really depends. There are instances that indeed, questioning the whole legality of the matter has to be addressed. But sometimes, “specialized” people fail to see the fact that maybe it’s in everyone’s best interests that police officials are denying certain liberties. It is unfortunate, but far from being unreasonable.<\/p>\n Do these people think the police don’t let you take pictures because they simply want to give you a hard time? They do it simply because they were told to do their job.<\/em> Instead, the reasons<\/em> which they apply their authority should be questioned and be taken into consideration. Just because they do something “unconstitutional,” it doesn’t immediately translate to an abuse of authority.<\/p>\n In another article<\/a> they wouldn’t allow people to take pictures of a certain object in a public place. It had nothing to do with safety, simply because the artist\/creator supposedly had even the photographic rights on the said object. The kicker here, is that the object was allegedly commissioned to the creator through taxpayers money.<\/em> Now that<\/em> indeed is an abuse of the law and authority over things in my opinion.<\/p>\n