Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by charliepark on Tuesday July 17, 2012 @08:34AM
(#4255400)
Clearly, he means "different as compared with the United States," where it's legal to photograph anything in a public space. But I get the sense you're itching for a fight about photographers' rights.
Although McDonald's isn't a public space, there would be several rungs in the ladder between "sir, you can't take photos in here" and a physical altercation.
Re:Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass
by batista on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @12:24PM
(#4261476)
>Clearly, he means "different as compared with the United States," where it's legal to photograph anything in a public space.
Despite this being the law, it can still get you in trouble with the police (in the US).
Different as compared to what? Google “right to bear camera” and you will find many documented cases of policepersons, people in charge, and passersby harassing photographers, in cases photographers that were not using their equipment. These take place in countries that are otherwise considered civilized, all over the world.
Do you mean “different” as in “elsewhere, terrorism would have been invoked at some point”? http://photographernotaterrorist.org/