Comment 63693

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted May 18, 2011 at 17:25:49 in reply to Comment 63661

I do not believe that you can publish pictures for any intent even if those pictures were taken in public. Intent is the key. Any time someone publishes pictures and or words with the intent to promote terrorism (or other crimes)that act itself is not allowed and becomes a crime.

Even when these pictures are legal to publish should we not use some sort of decorum when we do so? I am an avid photographer. Over the years I have taken more than a few pictures that paint people in a poor light. Makes them look fat, finger in their nose, making an obnoxious face etc. I do not ever publish these pictures. I destroy them if they are digital or simply get rid of the print if it is film since trying to destroy one frame of a film can be a pain. I bet the people whose dignity I protected are appreciative of that even if they are not even aware of my decision. I bet you would be too.

That fence and any fence can be climbed, the fence is like a lock it only stops honest people. If you want to scale any fence you can surely do it, however it becomes very noticeable, takes time and exposes the climber to other harsher measures. Think of a prison, yes they have fences but they also have armed guards to back them up.

Any camera can be disabled, I believe that, pretty much every one knows that. Showing others and possibly helping and or encouraging them to do it is another story entirely.

As far as our reaction if we see the bank doors are open is where we will never see eye to eye. You have every right in the world to call the media, but to what end? Will that do any more than calling the bank or the police? In fact the door will locked a lot quicker if the bank is called directly instead of them learning about it on the 11 o'clock news. Why do we need to embarrass someone simply because we can? Even if the front door is left open the money itself is probably very safe inside the vault. The news however would undoubtedly not portray it that way though. The bank wants to keep their premises safe nothing you or I can say or do will change that. I am not happy about the $1 billion price tag for security at the conference. Did Byron do anything to mitigate those costs? or did he in fact raise those costs through his actions?

At the conference there was indeed some theater, more than necessary by my standards. However none of the attendees was harmed so it at least met its goal in that respect. Was it possible to do it for less? I suspect it was especially considering a year earlier the costs in London were reported to be around 10% of that, but I am not a security expert. But then again there was no bank firebombed in England in the weeks leading up to the conference with the responsible group threatening to show up at the conference too.

In the end it comes down to personal judgment. Many people protested the summit and yet he is the only one still under detention. These things seldom happen randomly. How many made videos aiding and encouraging others to commit terrorist acts? By all accounts Mr. Sonne is a shit disturber and has been for a long time. This time he picked the wrong victim. Sure I feel a little sorry for him if this was all it was but it sure can be taken in a different light judging strictly by his actions.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds