3 ms·

Private grounds, private laws. I still don't get what benefits it brings not to have photos made and spread. Edit *In the end, it's all ads.

eterevsky 3y ago
The article suggests that this land is owned by a public organization.
- shapefrog 3y ago
  Navy boats are owned by a public organization, but I don't get to borrow them for a weekend in Ibiza.
  - 1letterunixname 3y ago
    The Navy doesn't extract profits from public areas the government tossed to them, cannibalizing and selling off the commonwealth to private interests.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - gpderetta 3y ago
    Navy boats are not typically open to the public.
- theGeatZhopa 3y ago
  But still. It's a ground of someone and that someone doesn't want photos to be taken - so, I have to accept that. One shouldn't get angry just because it's not allowed. Instead, one should search for reasons why like that and not the other way around.
  - adhesive_wombat 3y ago
    > I have to accept that. This is very much what the opaque private companies gobbling up land and services and slapping contract law all over it want you to think.
    - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
      Yes. But that's the law. The law can be changed. There just needs to be a supportive majority for that. Them(TM) opaque private companies also have to obey the same laws as me and me as whatever can force them to accept certain things. Even though Them don't want it. They're just excel their granted rights. Sometimes more than that. Then, sometimes get fined or worse. I also can do my right flipping and creative money laundering as well. I have more to lose, I guess, is the reason I don't. But I'm pretty aware of my rights :) So I have to accept that and insist on that this has to be accepted haha
altacc 3y ago
No such thing about private laws but there can be bylaws/rules that visitors implicitly agree to when they visit but these cannot conflict or invalidate the law of the land. E.g. they are requesting that people not take photos but they cannot physically stop anyone taking photos, they cannot seize equipment, nor demand that any photos taken are deleted or not used, nor take any action due to photographs been taken as long as the photographs don't break any laws. All they can do is use their legally given right to ask people to leave the property as that's what's proscribed as allowable under the law of the land.
- theGeatZhopa 3y ago
  Thank you for pointing that out. I used the wrong words. And way to less of them, too. I mean the same, basically. They can define some rules and you can play after the rules or go with the fools. Enforcement and such is, of course, a thing of the executive. And that is good.

eterevsky 3y ago

The article suggests that this land is owned by a public organization.

shapefrog 3y ago
Navy boats are owned by a public organization, but I don't get to borrow them for a weekend in Ibiza.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  The Navy doesn't extract profits from public areas the government tossed to them, cannibalizing and selling off the commonwealth to private interests.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- gpderetta 3y ago
  Navy boats are not typically open to the public.
theGeatZhopa 3y ago
But still. It's a ground of someone and that someone doesn't want photos to be taken - so, I have to accept that. One shouldn't get angry just because it's not allowed. Instead, one should search for reasons why like that and not the other way around.
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  > I have to accept that. This is very much what the opaque private companies gobbling up land and services and slapping contract law all over it want you to think.
  - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
    Yes. But that's the law. The law can be changed. There just needs to be a supportive majority for that. Them(TM) opaque private companies also have to obey the same laws as me and me as whatever can force them to accept certain things. Even though Them don't want it. They're just excel their granted rights. Sometimes more than that. Then, sometimes get fined or worse. I also can do my right flipping and creative money laundering as well. I have more to lose, I guess, is the reason I don't. But I'm pretty aware of my rights :) So I have to accept that and insist on that this has to be accepted haha

altacc 3y ago

No such thing about private laws but there can be bylaws/rules that visitors implicitly agree to when they visit but these cannot conflict or invalidate the law of the land. E.g. they are requesting that people not take photos but they cannot physically stop anyone taking photos, they cannot seize equipment, nor demand that any photos taken are deleted or not used, nor take any action due to photographs been taken as long as the photographs don't break any laws. All they can do is use their legally given right to ask people to leave the property as that's what's proscribed as allowable under the law of the land.

theGeatZhopa 3y ago
Thank you for pointing that out. I used the wrong words. And way to less of them, too. I mean the same, basically. They can define some rules and you can play after the rules or go with the fools. Enforcement and such is, of course, a thing of the executive. And that is good.