[Linux-aus] Designated Photography Space at LCA?

[Paul Shirren]

On 20/02/11 6:00 PM, Melissa Draper wrote:
> There's a difference between public and private property.
> Universities are technically private property [0].

It is a ticketed private event. The organisers should make
whatever terms and conditions they feel are appropriate to protect
attendees. The emphasis should be on actual protection and not
anti-harassment theatre. The name badge idea is unlikely to work and a
ban on photography in the main areas is unwarranted.

> "If people didn't want ____ then they shouldn't ____" is really not
> a narrative path you want to progress down.

I understand what you mean but it only serves to polarise the debate
when a reasonable statement of fact (photography IS normal and
ubiquitous in public) is conflated with something like "she deserved it
because she was wearing..."

"People should be banned from ____ because it offends ____" can also be
good or bad with the right variables.

> But lets keep in mind here that the actual issue at hand is that
> people are accepting that they may appear in photographs of large
> crowds, yet immensely dislike being one of the primary subjects of a
> photograph, and are unhappy that their requests to be avoided are
> pretty much ignored to the point that the same photographer can be
> trying again within the memory span of a goldfish.

That is just harassment. If they didn't have the camera to
hide behind they would probably be doing something else obnoxious. If
people don't take the hint after a fair warning they should be shown the
door. It doesn't seem like sufficient justification to deprive everyone
else of an opportunity to record some memories.