Jonathan F. said:
It is your right to take that public figure's photo in a public domain. They do not have the right to lay a hand on you or to physically assault you. By your reasoning you support violence and the suppression of free speech. It's our right as photographers to be aware of the limitations of the law and not to succumb to suppressive forces that wish to limit our ability to take photos or gather news.
But you miss the point here. Just because you, as a photographer, have a "right" to do something doesn't make it right or ethical. Walk up to me, shove a camera in my face while I am eating dinner and you have violated my right, perhaps not of privacy but certainly of "personal space" in an ethical sense. Again, how do we know what actions your compatriot took? You make it sound like he was standing 10 feet away, happily snapping, when this horrid celeb walked up and out of the blue hauled off and smacked him in the face.
I don't see anywhere in Larry's reasoned response where he advocates violence whatsoever, he just points out, and rightly so, that when you stand in the middle of the road and someone doesn't stop their car in time, you may have rights as a pedestrian but you are still dead. He goes on to suggest that staying back further with a longer lens, which may not be practical, will keep you more out of harms way. If nothing else it will give you more time to react. Plain common sense.
One other point to make here regarding what other measures you can take. I, as well, am licensed to carry which brings with it some pretty heavy responsibility. The most important of which is understanding escalation of force and the limits of what you can and cannot do. Whatever you choose to do, you will be looked on quite unfavorably by the courts if your response is at a higher level than the threat posed.
For example, a frail elderly female celebrity slaps you in the face because she doesn't like you intruding on an intimate dinner she is having with a much younger man, but you know that shot will net you a tidy sum. You react by pulling out your ASP baton and whacking her upside the head. The judge sees a hulking burly photographer who has just reacted above the threat level posed by said frail elderly woman. Guess who wins? Now, you still have your photo, your right of free speech has not been abridged, but you still may find youself on the wrong end of the law due to your own escalation of force.
Two entirely different issues, the one of the attack vs. the free speech issue. Again, I don't see anything in Larry's response suggesting that he supports violence nor the repression of free speech. Perhaps you should read his response again.
In conclusion, as Larry points out, if you put yourself in harms way the law and your rights only help you if the person on the other side of the "way" pays attention to them. And if not, they only help you after the fact, which may have consequences of its own.
