Like so many gun-loving Americans you get in some sort of frenzy at the thought of a country that bans them. And then you look at the 50,000 gun deaths in your country and the <100 in ours. I just wonder if there is a connection. And then the crime rate which is also vastly lower. Also a dictatorship goes against the will of the people. Aussies support the ban (mostly) and don't want it changed. See we like going to Maccas knowing that not every patron is armed. We like knowing that the brawl outside the pub is not going to turn into a gunfight.
And we aren't talking about 'underwear photos'. That simplistic term implies professional model shoots. We are talking about upskirt photos where consent is not given and is a clear invasion of privacy. I have been a long-time photographer myself including weddings etc. I get frustrated at the increasing limits on photography but I cant understand how what is essentially an invasion of pricay can be merely 'tasteless'. Upskirt photos here are banned but long before that they were considered unacceptable. -----Original Message----- From: profox-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Pete Theisen Sent: Wednesday, 28 January 2009 10:17 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] Stupid law of the year goes to congressman Peter King (R) New York Geoff Flight wrote: Hi Geoff! It certainly doesn't take anything to get you into ad hominem outrage. Australia, and any country that bans private ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens, is a dictatorship. It may be dictatorship by committee, but it is dictatorship nevertheless. It is interesting that you seem to think that a person "once a doctor", as you put it, should have some ethical restraint on his or her opinion of dictatorship and freedom. In addition to having been once a doctor I was once a professional photographer. Unless the law has changed, and I have not heard that it has, it is OK to photograph underwear wearing persons. If they are recognizable you have to have their permission to publish the pictures but not to take them. It is tasteless, but not "not OK". > You have an interesting description of 'dictatorship' and 'freedom'. I > believe you were once a doctor. Perhaps you should review the professional > ethics section and see if it gives you any advice on these matters. >> Breaching privacy but not being identifiable is hardly ok. Some things are >> just wrong - such as this. The camera sound idea tho is just absurd. > Perhaps if you live in a dictatorship such as Australia or anywhere in > the UK, but we have freedom of the press here. Thus, underwear pictures > per se are not banned. It is tasteless, however. > >> If the skirt wearer has clean underwear on and is not recognizable in >> the picture then it is merely tasteless. -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/011a01c980db$d853e620$88fbb2...@com.au ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
