This one time, at band camp, "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Normally it's not considered legal (considered consistent with normal, > democratic practice) to prevent or forbid photographing in places with > public access. Freedom of the press is basic in a democracy). So, I guess > this is a private or otherwise restricted event, without public access? Many > places appoint official photographers, nevertheless. In Denmark this would > not legally prevent any photographers from photographing anyway. A campaign against terrorism is being waged in Australia as we speak, and it seems anybody with a SLR and is a potential suspect. 'Be alert, not alarmed' we are being told while the television shows an image of a chappy taking a photo of a public building. Seems folks are being conditioned with this nonsense. Why do the words 'duck and cover' keep wandering in and out of my head? > BTW: Good luck, it's very nice to be acknowledged / appreciated. Thanks for the kind words Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
