pipistrelle wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 10:06 am
...
One kept insisting he had the right to video people going into and coming out of a public clinic (I can't recall if it was women's or mental health, but either way no one's business). They kept pushing him off the property that he insisted it was his right to be on.
Here I come to defend US civil rights
"Public photography" is the right to make pictures and videos from anything one can see from public property, eg roads, sidewalks, easements. It includes taking pictures of private property,i including what one can see thru openings like doors and windows. "Public property" includes publically accessible areas of public owned facilities and buldings.
In the mentioned case, 1AA are making their case that a property owner does respect that right. The property owners many times want to assert their right out unto the road in front of their business, that's not how it works. They may urge people off their property, but not of a sidewalk, not off the public easement along a public road in front of the business. That's where the "pushing off the property" can get them into hot water, can be considered battery if an employee touches a photographer. As for people entering and exiting a business that may be considered "sensitive" to some, people need to be aware that they can be observed even when walking in the area.
1AA generally do not pick the picture of specific individuals, just a couple of frames as they go past, it could be staff or visitors or merchants, who knows, actual patients usually don't have a distinction. Of course when people are stupid enough to walk up to the camera and demand that they not get photographed, then they become part of the story. Especially when they make threats like calling the police, or making other strange claims like "it's a federal building".