Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: Voice Recorders, videos, photos, and VA law

  1. #1
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    I remember a bunch of discussion with the MMM meetings a while back.

    I can find:



    [*]18.2-130(show hits) ..Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure.. (2) [*]18.2-386.1(show hits) ..Unlawful filming, videotaping or photographing of another; penalty.. (1)

    These make it illegal when there is an "expectation of privacy".

    Does anyone know of code that states public places are open game or limits what can be done on public property?

    I do understand that if there is not a law against it, it is legal, but I figured I would check.

    This is not OC related, I'm being told I cannot take pictures of my kids at a public place.

    I talked with the manager about the "No Camera" signs and she said that "Risk Management" had been over it. I've placed a call to the directory for the county and I'm waiting to hear back. I'm going to call again tomorrow if I do not hear back by noon.



  2. #2
    Activist Member Wolf_shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Accomac, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,213

    Post imported post

    See http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...light=recorder



    http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...-recording-law



    Virginia Wiretapping Law
    Virginia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. Virginia makes it a crime to intercept or record any "wire, oral, or electronic communication" unless one party to the conversation consents. Virginia Code § 19.2-62. Therefore, if you operate in Virginia, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. That said, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties.
    The wiretapping law does not cover oral communications when the speakers do not have an "expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectations." See Virginia Code § 19.2-61. Therefore, you may be able to record in-person conversations occurring in a public place, such as a street or restaurant, without consent. But you should seek the consent of one or all of the parties before recording any conversation that an ordinary person would deem private.
    [/quote]

    As long as one party to the conversation consents in Virginia you can record.
    Yes I carry a Bible and a Gun, your point.
    Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (meaning: "A defence of liberty against tyrants")
    Benjamin Franklin said, "A government that does not trust it's citizens with guns is a government that should not be trusted."



  3. #3
    Regular Member Riana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    943

    Post imported post

    possumboy wrote:
    This is not OC related, I'm being told I cannot take pictures of my kids at a public place.

    I talked with the manager about the "No Camera" signs and she said that "Risk Management" had been over it. I've placed a call to the directory for the county and I'm waiting to hear back. I'm going to call again tomorrow if I do not hear back by noon.
    I expect that if the private property owner/lessee requests (via the sign) that you not photograph (or carry a firearm), and you do it anyway, then they can ask you to leave.

    Out of curiosity, where is this location of which you speak? Perhaps we should snap pictures of ourselves OCing there. :P

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    possumboy wrote:
    I remember a bunch of discussion with the MMM meetings a while back.

    I can find:



    [*]
    18.2-130(show hits) ..Peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure.. (2)
    [*]
    18.2-386.1(show hits) ..Unlawful filming, videotaping or photographing of another; penalty.. (1)

    These make it illegal when there is an "expectation of privacy".

    Does anyone know of code that states public places are open game or limits what can be done on public property?

    I do understand that if there is not a law against it, it is legal, but I figured I would check.

    This is not OC related, I'm being told I cannot take pictures of my kids at a public place.

    I talked with the manager about the "No Camera" signs and she said that "Risk Management" had been over it. I've placed a call to the directory for the county and I'm waiting to hear back. I'm going to call again tomorrow if I do not hear back by noon.

    I don't know what fool told you that but you cannot photograph (Indecent pictures aside ...like up ladies skirts) anywhere in public. This includes areas that security or squareheads consider security risks. Just stay on public land. As fat as photographing on private property within public view, it can be photographed as long as it can be easily seen from the public right of way.

    I, as many photographers, use this attorney's opinion as a guide, and it has been sustained in court many times.

    About this Guide
    Confrontations that impair the constitutional
    right to make images are
    becoming more common. To fight the
    abuse of your right to free expression,
    you need to know your rights to take
    photographs and the remedies available
    if your rights are infringed.
    The General Rule
    The general rule in the United States
    is that anyone may take photographs
    of whatever they want when they are
    in a public place or places where they
    have permission to take photographs.
    Absent a specific legal prohibition
    such as a statute or ordinance, you are
    legally entitled to take photographs.
    Examples of places that are traditionally
    considered public are streets,
    sidewalks, and public parks.
    Property owners may legally prohibit
    photography on their premises
    but have no right to prohibit others
    from photographing their property
    from other locations. Whether you
    need permission from property owners
    to take photographs while on their
    premises depends on the circumstances.
    In most places, you may reasonably
    assume that taking photographs
    is allowed and that you do not
    need explicit permission. However,
    this is a judgment call and you should
    request permission when the circumstances
    suggest that the owner is likely
    to object. In any case, when a property
    owner tells you not to take photographs
    while on the premises, you are
    legally obligated to honor the request.
    Some Exceptions to the Rule
    There are some exceptions to the
    general rule. A significant one is that
    commanders of military installations
    can prohibit photographs of specific
    areas when they deem it necessary to
    protect national security. The U.S.
    Department of Energy can also prohibit
    photography of designated
    nuclear facilities although the publicly
    visible areas of nuclear facilities are
    usually not designated as such.
    Members of the public have a very
    limited scope of privacy rights when
    they are in public places. Basically,
    anyone can be photographed without
    their consent except when they have
    secluded themselves in places where
    they have a reasonable expectation of
    privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
    medical facilities, and inside
    their homes.
    Permissible Subjects
    Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
    the following subjects can
    almost always be photographed lawfully
    from public places:
    accident and fire scenes
    children
    celebrities
    bridges and other infrastructure
    residential and commercial buildings
    industrial facilities and public utilities
    transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
    Superfund sites
    criminal activities
    law enforcement officers
    Who Is Likely to Violate Your Rights
    Most confrontations are started by
    security guards and employees of
    organizations who fear photography.
    The most common reason given is
    security but often such persons have
    no articulated reason. Security is
    rarely a legitimate reason for restricting
    photography. Taking a photograph
    is not a terrorist act nor can a
    business legitimately assert that taking
    a photograph of a subject in public
    view infringes on its trade secrets.
    On occasion, law enforcement officers
    may object to photography but
    most understand that people have the
    right to take photographs and do not
    interfere with photographers. They do
    have the right to keep you away from
    areas where you may impede their
    activities or endanger safety. However,
    they do not have the legal right
    to prohibit you from taking photographs
    from other locations.
    They Have Limited Rights to Bother,
    Question, or Detain You
    Although anyone has the right to
    approach a person in a public place
    and ask questions, persistent and
    unwanted conduct done without a
    legitimate purpose is a crime in many
    states if it causes serious annoyance.
    You are under no obligation to explain
    the purpose of your photography nor
    do you have to disclose your identity
    except in states that require it upon
    request by a law enforcement officer.
    If the conduct goes beyond mere
    questioning, all states have laws that
    make coercion and harassment criminal
    offenses. The specific elements
    vary among the states but in general it
    is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear
    that they may injure you, damage or
    take your property, or falsely accuse
    you of a crime just because you are
    taking photographs.
    Private parties have very limited
    rights to detain you against your will
    and may be subject to criminal and
    civil charges should they attempt to
    do so. Although the laws in most
    states authorize citizen’s arrests, such
    authority is very narrow. In general,
    citizen’s arrests can be made only for
    felonies or crimes committed in the
    person’s presence. Failure to abide by
    these requirements usually means
    that the person is liable for a tort such
    as false imprisonment.
    They Have No Right to Confiscate
    Your Film
    Sometimes agents acting for entities
    such as owners of industrial plants
    and shopping malls may ask you to
    hand over your film. Absent a court
    order, private parties have no right to
    confiscate your film. Taking your film
    directly or indirectly by threatening to
    use force or call a law enforcement
    agency can constitute criminal offenses
    such as theft and coercion. It can
    likewise constitute a civil tort such as
    conversion. Law enforcement officers
    may have the authority to seize film
    when making an arrest but otherwise
    must obtain a court order.
    Your Legal Remedies If Harassed
    If someone has threatened, intimidated,
    or detained you because you were
    taking photographs, they may be
    liable for crimes such as kidnapping,
    coercion, and theft. In such cases, you
    should report them to the police.
    You may also have civil remedies
    against such persons and their
    employers. The torts for which you
    may be entitled to compensation
    include assault, conversion, false
    imprisonment, and violation of your
    constitutional rights.
    Other Remedies If Harassed
    If you are disinclined to take legal
    action, there are still things you can do
    that contribute to protecting the right
    to take photographs.
    (1) Call the local newspaper and see if
    they are interested in running a story.
    Many newspapers feel that civil liberties
    are worthy of serious coverage.
    (2) Write to or call the supervisor of
    the person involved, or the legal or
    public relations department of the
    entity, and complain about the event.
    (3) Make the event publicly known on
    an Internet forum that deals with photography
    or civil rights issues.
    How to Handle Confrontations
    Most confrontations can be defused
    by being courteous and respectful. If
    the party becomes pushy, combative,
    or unreasonably hostile, consider calling
    the police. Above all, use good
    judgment and don’t allow an event to
    escalate into violence.
    In the event you are threatened with
    detention or asked to surrender your
    film, asking the following questions
    can help ensure that you will have the
    evidence to enforce your legal rights:
    1. What is the person’s name?
    2. Who is their employer?
    3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do
    they intend to stop you if you decide
    to leave? What legal basis do they
    assert for the detention?
    4. Likewise, if they demand your film,
    what legal basis do they assert for the
    confiscation?
    Disclaimer
    This is a general education guide
    about the right to take photographs
    and is necessarily limited in scope.
    For more information about the laws
    that affect photography, I refer you to
    the second edition of my book, Legal
    Handbook for Photographers (Amherst
    Media, 2006).
    This guide is not intended to be legal
    advice nor does it create an attorney
    client relationship. Readers should
    seek the advice of a competent attorney
    when they need legal advice
    regarding a specific situation.
    published by:
    Bert P. Krages II
    Attorney at Law
    6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200
    Portland, Oregon 97223
    http://www.krages.com
    © 2003 Bert P. Krages II
    Your Rights and
    Remedies When
    Stopped or
    Confronted
    for Photography
    Updated November
    2006


  5. #5
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    possumboy wrote:
    This is not OC related, I'm being told I cannot take pictures of my kids at a public place.


    Care to elaborate on this public place?

    Peter, you beat me to it. I was looking up the photocraphers rights. I carry that around in my camera bag. I was confronted once in San Francisco by a random guy, about taking pictures of the GG Bridge. I had my camera, and a long lense on a tripod and was actually tacking pics of a group of sail boats in the bay, and the bridge just happened to be behind them.

    It was his position that I should remember 9-11, think of all the terrorists taking pictures of bridges, and that it was scary. I told him that there was sufficient information on the internet that terrorists didn't need to do their own recon, and that I wasn't taking pictures of the bridge anyway. I advised him that he was bothering me, and that he was free to call the police if that made him feel better. No police showed up.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    possumboy wrote:
    This is not OC related, I'm being told I cannot take pictures of my kids at a public place.


    I advised him that he was bothering me, and that he was free to call the police if that made him feel better. No police showed up.
    I'm usually a little less polite than that

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Buster, this OT from the original topic...but if you are a freelancer or a blogger...I have found these are extremely good to keep in your bag also.


    It's nice to cross that yellow" Police Do Not Cross" tape, and take pictures.

    § 15.2-1714. Establishing police lines, perimeters, or barricades.
    Whenever fires, accidents, wrecks, explosions, crimes, riots or other emergency situations where life, limb or property may be endangered may cause persons to collect on the public streets, alleys, highways, parking lots or other public area, the chief law-enforcement officer of any locality or that officer's authorized representative who is responsible for the security of the scene may establish such areas, zones or perimeters by the placement of police lines or barricades as are reasonably necessary to (i) preserve the integrity of evidence at such scenes, (ii) notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 46.2-888 through 46.2-891, facilitate the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic into, out of and around the scene, (iii) permit firefighters, police officers and emergency services personnel to perform necessary operations unimpeded, and (iv) protect persons and property.
    Any police line or barricade erected for these purposes shall be clearly identified by wording such as "Police Line - DO NOT CROSS" or other similar wording. If material or equipment is not available for identifying the prohibited area, then a verbal warning by identifiable law-enforcement officials positioned to indicate a location of a police line or barricade shall be given to any person or persons attempting to cross police lines or barricades without proper authorization.
    Such scene may be secured no longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the above-described purposes. Nothing in this section shall limit or otherwise affect the authority of, or be construed to deny access to such scene by, any person charged by law with the responsibility of rendering assistance at or investigating any such fires, accidents, wrecks, explosions, crimes or riots.
    Personnel from information services such as press, radio and television, when gathering news, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section except that it shall be unlawful for such persons to obstruct the police, firemen and rescue workers in the performance of their duties at such scene. Such personnel shall proceed at their own risk.
    (1984, c. 533, § 15.1-140.1; 1990, c. 327; 1997, c. 587.)

    § 27-15.1. Authority of chief, director or other officer in charge when answering alarm or operating at an emergency incident; penalty for refusal to obey orders.
    While any fire/EMS department or fire/EMS company is in the process of answering an alarm or operating at an emergency incident where there is imminent danger or the actual occurrence of fire or explosion or the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials which threaten life or property and returning to the station, the chief, director, or other officer in charge of such fire/EMS department or company at that time shall have the authority to: (i) maintain order at such emergency incident or its vicinity, (ii) direct the actions of the fire fighters or emergency medical services personnel at the incident, (iii) notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 46.2-888 through 46.2-891, keep bystanders or other persons at a safe distance from the incident and emergency equipment, (iv) facilitate the speedy movement and operation of emergency equipment and fire fighters or emergency medical services personnel, (v) cause an investigation to be made into the origin and cause of the incident, and (vi) until the arrival of a police officer, direct and control traffic in person or by deputy and facilitate the movement of traffic. The fire chief, director, or other officer in charge shall display his fire fighter's or emergency medical services personnel's badge, or other proper means of identification. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this authority shall extend to the activation of traffic control signals designed to facilitate the safe egress and ingress of emergency equipment at a fire/EMS station. Any person or persons refusing to obey the orders of the chief, director, or his deputies or other officer in charge at that time shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. The chief, director, or other officer in charge shall have the power to make arrests for violation of the provisions of this section. The authority granted under the provisions of this section may not be exercised to inhibit or obstruct members of law-enforcement agencies or rescue squads from performing their normal duties when operating at such emergency incident, nor to conflict with or diminish the lawful authority, duties and responsibilities of forest wardens, including but not limited to the provisions of Chapter 11 of Title 10.1. Personnel from the news media, such as the press, radio and television, when gathering the news may enter at their own risk into the incident area only when the officer in charge has deemed the area safe and only into those areas of the incident that do not, in the opinion of the officer in charge, interfere with the fire/EMS department or fire fighters or emergency medical services personnel dealing with such emergencies, in which case the chief or other officer in charge may order such person from the scene of the emergency incident.
    (1970, c. 187; 1977, c. 326; 1984, c. 644; 2001, c. 142; 2008, c. 410.)


    § 46.2-890. Stopping in vicinity of fire or emergency.
    No vehicle shall be stopped at or in the vicinity of a fire, vehicle or airplane accident, or other area of emergency, in such a manner as to create a traffic hazard or interfere with law-enforcement officers, fire fighters, rescue workers, or others whose duty it is to deal with such emergencies. Any vehicle found unlawfully parked in the vicinity of a fire, accident, or area of emergency may be removed by order of a law-enforcement officer or, in the absence of a law-enforcement officer, by order of the uniformed fire or rescue officer in charge, at the risk and expense of the owner if such vehicle creates a traffic hazard or interferes with the necessary procedures of law-enforcement officers, fire fighters, rescue workers, or others whose assigned duty it is to deal with such emergencies. The charge for such removal shall not exceed the actual and necessary cost. Vehicles being used by accredited information services, such as press, radio, and television, when being used for the gathering of news, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section, except when actually obstructing the law-enforcement officers, fire fighters, and rescue workers dealing with such emergencies.
    (Code 1950, § 46-256; 1952, c. 671; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-248; 1962, c. 175; 1972, c. 63; 1974, c. 230; 1977, cc. 284, 326; 1985, c. 93; 1989, c. 727.)





  8. #8
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    NSL's explanation of"expectation of privacy" could be reworded to mean "I can disrobe and prance around naked" in this location. Not following me on this one? Let me explain:

    My car: It's my personal private property, but... I am not allowed to be naked in my car, therefore no expectation of privacy.

    My home: It's my personal private property, and I can prance around naked if I desire. There is an expectation of privacy.

    Changing room at a clothing store: It's not my personal private property, but it is an area where I am allowed to disrobe. I have an expectation of privacy there and store loss prevention security cameras are not allowed to film that area.

    Library: Public property, cannot disrobe, no expectation of privacy.

    Lactation room (for mothers): Private OR public property where women partially expose themselves for the purpose of feeding younglings. They have an expectation of privacy.

    I could list many more examples but I think you catch my drift. If you are out in public, anywhere that the Hollywood paparazzi could operate legally, you have no expectation of privacy.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    My guess is he was in a museum or otherwise. They can and do regulated flashes and other devices that may harm the art. Some places try to prevent photographing items to prevent copying. They cannot do that.

    I often photograph other photographs that the copyright has expired on. My farm is decorated with pictures such as this:




    Some places do not want pictures for security purposes. It is almost impossible to enforce.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Riana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    943

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    NSL's explanation of"expectation of privacy" could be reworded to mean "I can disrobe and prance around naked" in this location. Not following me on this one? Let me explain:

    My car: It's my personal private property, but... I am not allowed to be naked in my car, therefore no expectation of privacy.

    My home: It's my personal private property, and I can prance around naked if I desire. There is an expectation of privacy.
    :what:

    This makes perfect sense to me. And yet it scares me. All at the same time.

  11. #11
    Activist Member Wolf_shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Accomac, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,213

    Post imported post

    Riana wrote:
    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    NSL's explanation of"expectation of privacy" could be reworded to mean "I can disrobe and prance around naked" in this location. Not following me on this one? Let me explain:

    My car: It's my personal private property, but... I am not allowed to be naked in my car, therefore no expectation of privacy.

    My home: It's my personal private property, and I can prance around naked if I desire. There is an expectation of privacy.
    :what:

    This makes perfect sense to me. And yet it scares me. All at the same time.
    How the name nakedshoplifter came about worries me.
    Yes I carry a Bible and a Gun, your point.
    Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (meaning: "A defence of liberty against tyrants")
    Benjamin Franklin said, "A government that does not trust it's citizens with guns is a government that should not be trusted."



  12. #12
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    The signs are up at DCRC. I placed a call to the director of parks about the signs.

    He returned my call and said he is talking to the County's attorney and would call me back.

    Their major defense is "parents have complained about people taking pictures of their kids".

    I'm going to call back tomorrow and ask for an update.

    I had a discussion with him back in 2006 about rude employees harassing me over my gun. He handled it quickly and professionally.

    I'll update what I hear tomorrow.


    On a side note, my wife said a mother was filming there the other day. We are guessing that they have problems with men filming. Which upsets me more that they assume I'm a pedophile.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    The "reasonable expectation of privacy" refers to Fourth Amendment privacy, not First Amendment privacy. *That's because the Eavesdropping, Wiretapping, and Electronic Surveillance Act was incorporated into the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as a restraint against unlawful eavesdropping by law enforcement and agents of The State. *(This is the statute that George Bush admitted on television to having violated thousands of times. *The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act only gave the president an easy way to get the required warrant. *Each instance of wiretapping without a warrant was a felony.)

    The Act states that each state may adopt its own version as long as it is no less restrictive than the federal statute. *So Maryland, Illinois, and a half a dozen other states with a history of political corruption, passed statutes that were more restrictive, in that cops had to have the consent of every party to the conversation before warrentless wiretaps could be performed. *That's because the politicians were afraid of prosecution.

    Anyway, the expectation of privacy required is one where the person being observed has taken steps to ensure his own privacy; i.e., he's in his own bedroom, with no one else present, and the door is shut. *The "open fields" doctrine applies to conversations that take place in public or unsecured areas, even where one might feel he would be entitled to privacy. *For example, at a small table located at a remote corner of a restaurant.

    The issue of taking pictures of kids in public is a concern. *It is a felony to be in possession of more than two images of persons who look like they might be (!) less than eighteen years old, if any part of the buttocks, breast, or "pubic region" is showing. *I.e., it's a crime to take pictures at the beach. *Even of your own kids. *Btw, the phrase, "pubic region" has been taken by a U.S. Court of Appeals to mean "the inner part of the thigh".
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848

    Post imported post

    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    "I can disrobe and prance around naked"
    You are gonna change your handle now to "nakedprancearounder"?
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    ed wrote:
    nakedshoplifter wrote:
    "I can disrobe and prance around naked"
    You are gonna change your handle now to "nakedprancearounder"?
    This thread has conjured up some disturbing mental images:shock:

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    The Act states that each state may adopt its own version as long as it is no less restrictive than the federal statute.
    Does this parse as '... as long as it is more than or as restrictive than the federal statute'?

    It is a principle of formal logic that not less than is formally equivalent to greater than or equal to. De Morgans' theorem IIRC

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    User....Thanks! That was an informative post.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    user wrote:
    The Act states that each state may adopt its own version as long as it is no less restrictive than the federal statute.
    Does this parse as '... as long as it is more than or as restrictive than the federal statute'?

    It is a principle of formal logic that not less than is formally equivalent to greater than or equal to. De Morgans' theorem IIRC


  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    user wrote:
    The Act states that each state may adopt its own version as long as it is no less restrictive than the federal statute.
    Does this parse as '... as long as it is more than or as restrictive than the federal statute'?



    It is a principle of formal logic that not less than is formally equivalent to greater than or equal to.* De Morgans' theorem IIRC
    *

    Ahh, but that assumes that law has something to do with logic!

    Actually, I had trouble with that one, too - but what it boils down to is that the prohibition against surreptitious recording must be at least as restrictive as the federal law, or else the federal statute will apply.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  20. #20
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    user wrote:

    The issue of taking pictures of kids in public is a concern. It is a felony to be in possession of more than two images of persons who look like they might be (!) less than eighteen years old, if any part of the buttocks, breast, or "pubic region" is showing. I.e., it's a crime to take pictures at the beach. Even of your own kids. Btw, the phrase, "pubic region" has been taken by a U.S. Court of Appeals to mean "the inner part of the thigh".
    How often does this becomea problem for people? I think it's safe to say that many people have more than two pictures of their own children when they were young that show at least the buttocks.

    Is it really a crime to take pictures at the beach? I just got done taking dozens of pictures at the beach. They were all of parasailing. No kids at all, but it's hard to believe I was breaking a law? A few weeks ago, there was a volleyball tournament at Virginia Beach. I saw a ton of people taking pics there.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    I was sort of kidding about the beach comment; but it's not too much of a stretch. *Taking pictures of kids with "lascivious intent" showing prohibited body parts is illegal. *A random kid getting in the picture you're taking of the in-laws is not a problem unless you've got some kind of lust thing going on for the in-laws.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Riana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA
    Posts
    943

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    A random kid getting in the picture you're taking of the in-laws is not a problem unless you've got some kind of lust thing going on for the in-laws.
    Which represents an entirely different problem...

  23. #23
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    user wrote:
    I was sort of kidding about the beach comment; but it's not too much of a stretch. Taking pictures of kids with "lascivious intent" showing prohibited body parts is illegal. A random kid getting in the picture you're taking of the in-laws is not a problem unless you've got some kind of lust thing going on for the in-laws.
    I'm glad you were kidding about the beach.

    The other part is still a little sketchy. The two or more pictures of a youngster with their bum showing seems a bit tough.Kids like to run around naked.

    Oh well, I guess the government is there to help.

  24. #24
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    I have not heard from him. I did call and request a status Thursday of last week.

    I called again today, but it was after hours, requesting another status. I did leave a message requesting another update.

    Is there anything I can do but sit and wait for them to do something?

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Post imported post

    I must have missed something. *Explain again how it's in their interests to do anything or to respond in any way? *What were you expecting? *What's "MMM", by the way, I'm not familiar with that abbreviation, and what's their authority for telling you that you're not permitted to take pictures of your kids?
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •