Tuesday, July 03, 2007
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, FOIA
Happy Independence Day. I can think of no better way to celebrate our independence than by thanking our forefathers for the First Amendment's freedom of speech and reminding everyone about the freedom of information.
On this day, 41 years ago, a brilliant piece of legislation was signed into law. Ending a trend of the government hiding its business from the public, the Freedom of Information Act allowed people to know more about their government, their taxes and what their elected leaders did in their name. Since then, states have followed up with their own versions. Missouri has its own Sunshine Law, and every citizen should be familiar with it and FOIA.
You'd think that with the advent of "e," information would be even easier to access. Not always true in some cases. Wired presents a wrapup of the top five wins and losses for FOIA dealing with electronic means. Sure, Wired pats itself on the back, but the story is a handy reminder of what our government thinks applies. Then again, a Wired blogger says how he really feels about the act.
On this day, 41 years ago, a brilliant piece of legislation was signed into law. Ending a trend of the government hiding its business from the public, the Freedom of Information Act allowed people to know more about their government, their taxes and what their elected leaders did in their name. Since then, states have followed up with their own versions. Missouri has its own Sunshine Law, and every citizen should be familiar with it and FOIA.
You'd think that with the advent of "e," information would be even easier to access. Not always true in some cases. Wired presents a wrapup of the top five wins and losses for FOIA dealing with electronic means. Sure, Wired pats itself on the back, but the story is a handy reminder of what our government thinks applies. Then again, a Wired blogger says how he really feels about the act.
Labels: FIRST AMENDMENT, OPEN GOV'T, politics
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
PHOTOGRAPHY FREEDOM: SHOOT FIRST, ANSWER QUESTIONS LATER
Found on Wired.com: The story of a San Francisco photographer freelancer/hobbyist who blogs not only about his photography, but also his run-ins with people who don't like him shooting photos. As Thomas Hawk (a blogging pseudonym) tells Evan Ratliff: "Where I'm different from most photographers is that I'm not going to back down."
Hawk is a career investment adviser -- not the kind of person you'd see making public statements and reminding us of our rights. He shoots photography for art's sake; he tells Ratliff he has a goal of taking 100,000 images of the Bay Area over the next 20 years. His mission is noble, however.
Photographers are grouped into two categories: Hobbyists taking grip 'n' grins of their family and friends, and paparrazi. The Mailbox would guess that the public groups journalists in the latter category. And paparrazi are not too well-regarded, because they are intrusive and flaunt their rights in order to get a shot of Britney's hoo-hah.
Which does not bode well for the citizen journalist, photojournalist, artistic photographer or anyone else who appears to have a working knowledge of a camera and is not telling a crowd in front of the Hard Rock Cafe to say, "Cheeeeeeeese..."
Earlier this year, the Dallas-bound Granny Geek posted great shots of Springfield using taxpayer resources to protect the President. While citizen journalists often report wearing their biases on their sleeves and in their words, they use the same rights that every American citizen is guaranteed. Granny has written several times reminding us of our freedoms. (She even recommends a perfect camera for bloggers, though the Mailbox is eyeing something a little bigger.)
The problem is that people do not know their rights when it comes to photography. Simply put, if you're standing on public property, you can shoot anything around you. However, most people worry about an invasion of privacy. They invoke decency, and choose not to shoot people around them. They eschew invasive tactics. Maybe they ask for permission and, if turned down, find another option. There is absolutely nothing wrong with decency of that sort.
But, the fear of photographers has increased since we began our war on terror. Now, guards, police and other security personnel are taught that anyone taking pictures is acting suspiciously. Hawk reminds us that this is not the case. And should never be.
Found on Wired.com: The story of a San Francisco photographer freelancer/hobbyist who blogs not only about his photography, but also his run-ins with people who don't like him shooting photos. As Thomas Hawk (a blogging pseudonym) tells Evan Ratliff: "Where I'm different from most photographers is that I'm not going to back down."
Hawk is a career investment adviser -- not the kind of person you'd see making public statements and reminding us of our rights. He shoots photography for art's sake; he tells Ratliff he has a goal of taking 100,000 images of the Bay Area over the next 20 years. His mission is noble, however.
Photographers are grouped into two categories: Hobbyists taking grip 'n' grins of their family and friends, and paparrazi. The Mailbox would guess that the public groups journalists in the latter category. And paparrazi are not too well-regarded, because they are intrusive and flaunt their rights in order to get a shot of Britney's hoo-hah.
Which does not bode well for the citizen journalist, photojournalist, artistic photographer or anyone else who appears to have a working knowledge of a camera and is not telling a crowd in front of the Hard Rock Cafe to say, "Cheeeeeeeese..."
Earlier this year, the Dallas-bound Granny Geek posted great shots of Springfield using taxpayer resources to protect the President. While citizen journalists often report wearing their biases on their sleeves and in their words, they use the same rights that every American citizen is guaranteed. Granny has written several times reminding us of our freedoms. (She even recommends a perfect camera for bloggers, though the Mailbox is eyeing something a little bigger.)
The problem is that people do not know their rights when it comes to photography. Simply put, if you're standing on public property, you can shoot anything around you. However, most people worry about an invasion of privacy. They invoke decency, and choose not to shoot people around them. They eschew invasive tactics. Maybe they ask for permission and, if turned down, find another option. There is absolutely nothing wrong with decency of that sort.
But, the fear of photographers has increased since we began our war on terror. Now, guards, police and other security personnel are taught that anyone taking pictures is acting suspiciously. Hawk reminds us that this is not the case. And should never be.
Labels: FIRST AMENDMENT, FREEDOM, PHOTOGRAPHY
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
ROCKSTAR BULLIED IN FLORIDA COURT
For those that don’t know, Bully is officially out. Hit the stores last Tuesday. That didn’t matter to a Florida judge.
Before it was released, a crusader against violent video games convinced a judge to block it. Instead of dismissing the case firsthand (as the First Amendment calls for), the judge is going to play it himself to decide how violent it is.
Bully is designed by the same company that did Grand Theft Auto. If you listen to the designers, however, you’ll hear that the game does not glorify violence at all. There is the potential for mayhem within the game, but reviewers have concluded that it doesn’t glorify violence, but focuses on defending the helpless.
The Mailbox was considering getting the game. Now that it’s found out about this judge, the Mailbox is getting this game with its next paycheck.
Labels: COURTS, FIRST AMENDMENT, VIDEO GAMES
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]