3 ms·

>Forgive me if I don't think someone else should have that kind of control over something that could affect me deeply. No, I am not going to forgive you for th

>Forgive me if I don't think someone else should have that kind of control over something that could affect me deeply. No, I am not going to forgive you for that. Not you nor any one else with such views. It sounds like you are ready to deny to other people their basic freedoms just because it "could affect you deeply". This way any oppression really work. To avoid repeating myself I'll direct you to my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29335887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29335887 >I understand this and also disagree with it. It may be the way things are but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Of course it doesn't mean you have to like it. You may not like it as long as you do not convert it to aggressive actions that I have observed many times in the streets. >You are asking me to care more about people's artistic freedom than my own peace of mind. That is never going to happen. I am not asking you anything it is your responsibility to care about things that could lead to loosing freedom in society. I am claiming it is a right of an artist to have freedom of thoughts and art expression and if you really mean what you say it seems like you are ready step over it. From my perspective you are crossing the line there with severe consequences. >I don't see how asking for a good faith effort to ask permission to take or publish photos of an individual is trampling the ability of artists to express themselves. Street photography doesn't work this way at all which means zero ability for artist to express themselves in that way. If you ask permission then you already lost the moment you wanted to picture. If you have to ask permissions you are not free to do what you really wanted because the subject who is sometimes unable to grasp what was in your mind due to the lack of education or any other reason would have the ability to block your work just because to his uneducated or corrupted or super enlightened mind it is not what photographer should picture. Why to bother then if someone else in full censorship over your work? It is zero freedom for art expression. And it influences the mood of photographer thus not allowing him to feel free and make pictures of what is really going on according to his perception. So instead of work of art you'll get glamour stupid pictures. Artificial demo instead of quality observation by the artist. Thanks to the attitude you've perfectly described it makes it in some countries absolutely impossible to do proper street photography and even harder to publish due to a lot of hassle. This leads to the situation where I simply do not publish my street photography and this is exactly: "how asking for a good faith effort to ask permission to take or publish photos of an individual is trampling the ability of artists to express themselves." >When people photograph you, they can then do anything they want with that photo. They can delete it, or store it indefinitely, or post it online, turn it into a meme, whatever. It is not exactly like that, there are nuances in each case of usage and they vary in different countries. But in general freedom of other person means that it is choice of that person and yes it can affect you deeply. Does it mean you should prohibit everything that affects you deeply? again there are other things that affect you much more deeply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29335887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29335887 Would you also be in favor of prohibiting a free speech? After all some of it could be unpleasant and affect you deeply? Just keep in mind that once you do that the society looses ability to discuss hard issues thus unable to face real issues thus separating itself from reality and together with inability for the artist to deliver different perspective on things would exactly be moving toward doomed oppressed society that is unable to deal with real world. If you wish to see live example you can look toward Russia and Belarus. Would you prefer to live there?

bluefirebrand 5y ago
I find this view to be wildly dramatic. As if the right to street photography is the only thing stopping society from sliding into fascism. Give me a break. Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom because I happen to disagree with how consent around public photography is handled is nonsense. Here's an anecdote from my local paper: A woman is on a public bus with her baby. A man starts taking photographs of her baby. She asks him to stop because it makes her uncomfortable. He doesn't stop, insisting that he's perfectly allowed because it's a public space. He's right of course. But I have a huge problem with that and think it shouldn't be allowed. I guess that makes me a fascist. Like how dare I think that guy should have to ask permission. And surely if he wasn't allowed to do that it would mean the absolute end of freedom in the world. Those baby photos are critical to maintain our rights. Get outta here.
- lovelyviking 5y ago
  >I find this view to be wildly dramatic. As if the right to street photography is the only thing stopping society from sliding into fascism. Give me a break. This is not what I was saying. I was talking about freedom of the artist in general and how it is not respected in street photography in particular. Street photography is just an example where people can put own little discomfort and feelings above principles designed to keep society free. Freedom of speech and many other things could make us uncomfortable but not all of them should be taken more seriously than values protecting freedom. In a society with freedom of speech we are not trying to avoid discomfort we are intentionally ignore certain discomfort for the sake of a greater good: discuss freely serious issues and see the different perspective on things provided by artists of all kinds. Some serious issues cannot be discussed without hurting some feelings and this is by design. Certain discomfort is accepted for the sake of freedom. On the other hand person can learn that doesn't have to hurt own feelings. If you explore how some societies ended up in totalitarianism you see the common pattern that they are happy to accept laws protecting some discomfort without thinking about consequences and those consequences come faster then they expect. Unfortunately those consequences deliver much more discomforts then the first laws were trying to avoid. >Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom I have no interest to paint you anyhow. My interest is the point of view you describe at the moment and I am trying to explain where such view leads in a long run. When you say "But I have a huge problem with that and think it shouldn't be allowed." it is indeed shows that the view you possibly hold at the moment leads to readiness to trample at least on freedom of photographer. I do not know the details of the story but women doesn't have to be offended by photography by the way and some women are even proud and happy in such situations and can take it with smile. I mean it is a decision of a person how to take it isn't it? Here is another anecdote from my personal experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547 and another one when I was making video of bush: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707 and I have many more stories like that ... >I guess that makes me a fascist. Like how dare I think that guy should have to ask permission. The problem here with the word "should". If you use it it means you are ready to trample over freedom of photographer if I am not mistaken here? >And surely if he wasn't allowed to do that it would mean the absolute end of freedom in the world. Those baby photos are critical to maintain our rights. This statement is manipulative. I was not talking about particular photos I was talking about principle of readiness to step over freedom of an artist and where it leads. As I was saying above : Street photography is just an example where people can put own little discomfort and feelings above principles designed to keep society free. >Get outta here. I do not think I am willing to satisfy your feeling here because people with the view you've described need learn to respect freedom of artists and see the benefit for the society in doing so. And together with "Get outta here." you are saying: " Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom ..." I am not sure how to properly interpret that. But I guess people who are ready to step over freedom of photographer to avoid own feeling of discomfort are not very active in protecting feelings of photographers from discomfort for merely doing their job. I just hope you can learn the other side from the anecdote I've provided to see the whole picture.

bluefirebrand 5y ago

I find this view to be wildly dramatic. As if the right to street photography is the only thing stopping society from sliding into fascism. Give me a break. Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom because I happen to disagree with how consent around public photography is handled is nonsense. Here's an anecdote from my local paper: A woman is on a public bus with her baby. A man starts taking photographs of her baby. She asks him to stop because it makes her uncomfortable. He doesn't stop, insisting that he's perfectly allowed because it's a public space. He's right of course. But I have a huge problem with that and think it shouldn't be allowed. I guess that makes me a fascist. Like how dare I think that guy should have to ask permission. And surely if he wasn't allowed to do that it would mean the absolute end of freedom in the world. Those baby photos are critical to maintain our rights. Get outta here.

lovelyviking 5y ago
>I find this view to be wildly dramatic. As if the right to street photography is the only thing stopping society from sliding into fascism. Give me a break. This is not what I was saying. I was talking about freedom of the artist in general and how it is not respected in street photography in particular. Street photography is just an example where people can put own little discomfort and feelings above principles designed to keep society free. Freedom of speech and many other things could make us uncomfortable but not all of them should be taken more seriously than values protecting freedom. In a society with freedom of speech we are not trying to avoid discomfort we are intentionally ignore certain discomfort for the sake of a greater good: discuss freely serious issues and see the different perspective on things provided by artists of all kinds. Some serious issues cannot be discussed without hurting some feelings and this is by design. Certain discomfort is accepted for the sake of freedom. On the other hand person can learn that doesn't have to hurt own feelings. If you explore how some societies ended up in totalitarianism you see the common pattern that they are happy to accept laws protecting some discomfort without thinking about consequences and those consequences come faster then they expect. Unfortunately those consequences deliver much more discomforts then the first laws were trying to avoid. >Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom I have no interest to paint you anyhow. My interest is the point of view you describe at the moment and I am trying to explain where such view leads in a long run. When you say "But I have a huge problem with that and think it shouldn't be allowed." it is indeed shows that the view you possibly hold at the moment leads to readiness to trample at least on freedom of photographer. I do not know the details of the story but women doesn't have to be offended by photography by the way and some women are even proud and happy in such situations and can take it with smile. I mean it is a decision of a person how to take it isn't it? Here is another anecdote from my personal experience: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29342547 and another one when I was making video of bush: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29339707 and I have many more stories like that ... >I guess that makes me a fascist. Like how dare I think that guy should have to ask permission. The problem here with the word "should". If you use it it means you are ready to trample over freedom of photographer if I am not mistaken here? >And surely if he wasn't allowed to do that it would mean the absolute end of freedom in the world. Those baby photos are critical to maintain our rights. This statement is manipulative. I was not talking about particular photos I was talking about principle of readiness to step over freedom of an artist and where it leads. As I was saying above : Street photography is just an example where people can put own little discomfort and feelings above principles designed to keep society free. >Get outta here. I do not think I am willing to satisfy your feeling here because people with the view you've described need learn to respect freedom of artists and see the benefit for the society in doing so. And together with "Get outta here." you are saying: " Trying to paint me as some kind of jackboot who is ready to trample all over everyones freedom ..." I am not sure how to properly interpret that. But I guess people who are ready to step over freedom of photographer to avoid own feeling of discomfort are not very active in protecting feelings of photographers from discomfort for merely doing their job. I just hope you can learn the other side from the anecdote I've provided to see the whole picture.