[JeffJS]

They would have varied from tribe to tribe. However, the East Coast NA's more or less welcomed them with open arms.

Parallax-
"I don't believe that cow-milking is an ideology. Freedom of speech, religion, freedom to assemble, freedom to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects are. Milking a cow, whether by hand or machine, has no effect on principal.
Saying to the press, in essence, "you can't take and publish a picture of that because it makes me look bad", kind of does go against some fundamental premises."

The government has been doing that whenever they pretty much please for the last few decades. I see nothing wrong with taking with taking pictures of wildlife dead from the oil spill pictures. I also see nothing wrong with taking pictures of flag draped coffins coming home to their families, either. Before anybody jumps on me for that last comment, yes, I have had had 2 family members come home in flag draped coffins-my brother first and 5 years later my nephew. Both came from Afghanistan before we were "officially" there.

It's the same principal to me: The government doesn't want the people to know how badly things are really going.

That would depend on Where you are taking the photos, IMO. Are you at the air field where they are unloading them, or are you at the grave yard where they are putting them to rest. Huge difference in my mind.

[subeeds]

That would depend on Where you are taking the photos, IMO. Are you at the air field where they are unloading them, or are you at the grave yard where they are putting them to rest. Huge difference in my mind.

Either one. I was able to be at the airfield (Dover AFB) when my nephew and approx. 50 other young soldiers from Iraq came home to their families on the same plane. It was one of the most moving, respectful moments I have ever witnessed in my life. It was also one of the most heartbreaking.

[JeffJS]

Either one. I was able to be at the airfield (Dover AFB) when my nephew and approx. 50 other young soldiers from Iraq came home to their families on the same plane. It was one of the most moving, respectful moments I have ever witnessed in my life. It was also one of the most heartbreaking.

I, fortunately, don't know anyone who has come back that way. I'm sorry for anyone who has to go through that but am thankful, that I do not. I really don't see it as appropriate (outsiders taking pictures) in either case but wouldn't really question someone doing it at the landing point.

[Nesster]

Subeeds, I'm sorry for the loss and sacrifice your family has endured.

--

On the oil spill stuff, if it's BP money that's being spent, BP doing the work, and BP bought and paid for local officials, who are we to enforce our 'rights' to a private matter? This is a slippery slope, for if we overrule BP's privacy, then what's next?

[subeeds]

I've pretty much always been an anti- war type of gal. I think if people could see pictures like that of people's sons, fathers, husbands, brothers and nephews coming home that way, it might take away some of the "eagerness" for war.
To get back to RML's OP, I'll say again, the government doesn't want people to focus on the negative because then we will see how bad things really are and might expect them to do something about it.

---------- Post added 07-06-10 at 08:04 PM ----------

Subeeds, I'm sorry for the loss and sacrifice your family has endured.

--

On the oil spill stuff, if it's BP money that's being spent, BP doing the work, and BP bought and paid for local officials, who are we to enforce our 'rights' to a private matter? This is a slippery slope, for if we overrule BP's privacy, then what's next?

Nesster, thanks. I guess we were posting at the same time.
This oil is washing up on our coasts and now, into La. lakes. The way I see it, BP gave up their right to privacy when they took those safety shortcuts that resulted in the deaths of their workers and now the near death of the Gulf. Everything they do should be scrutinized as closely as possible to be sure there are no more shortcuts resulting in more disasters.

[johnmflores]

The divisiveness of this country is beyond measure...

This is what worries me. The media, in search of ratings and profits, has consistently pushed politics to the extreme ends of the spectrum. In my generation, it started with CNN's Crossfire in the 80s and continues to this day.

You Tube

You Tube

This little group is a microcosm, and shows how pervasive the media's extreme posturing has been. There is rarely a topic that the group as a whole can agree upon. More often than not it's the same old slinging from the same old bunkers. If we can't come to any consensus here, what are the chances that our leaders can?

[reeftool]

On the oil spill stuff, if it's BP money that's being spent, BP doing the work, and BP bought and paid for local officials, who are we to enforce our 'rights' to a private matter? This is a slippery slope, for if we overrule BP's privacy, then what's next?

While it's BP's money being spent, it's US beaches, waterways, and wildlife getting ruined. To attempt to ban photographing of the oil coated birds, oil clogged lagoons, etc is NOT overruling BP's privacy. This is public property, owned by the taxpayers and some private property owned by US citizens. BP has NO rights in this matter.

[Nesster]

Apparently, however they do or at least whoever is enforcing this seems to have that understanding.

[GeneV]

Subeeds, I'm sorry for the loss and sacrifice your family has endured.

--

On the oil spill stuff, if it's BP money that's being spent, BP doing the work, and BP bought and paid for local officials, who are we to enforce our 'rights' to a private matter? This is a slippery slope, for if we overrule BP's privacy, then what's next?

The slopes (and beaches) are definitely getting more "slippery" with every day.

[Parallax]

While it's BP's money being spent, it's US beaches, waterways, and wildlife getting ruined. To attempt to ban photographing of the oil coated birds, oil clogged lagoons, etc is NOT overruling BP's privacy. This is public property, owned by the taxpayers and some private property owned by US citizens. BP has NO rights in this matter.

Apparently, however they do or at least whoever is enforcing this seems to have that understanding.

Like the comedian Nipsey Russell once said: "Money can't buy everything, but let's not get confused; the things that money can not buy are very seldom used.
BP has the assets to buy from the politicians whatever rights it wants.

[MRRiley]

On the oil spill stuff, if it's BP money that's being spent, BP doing the work, and BP bought and paid for local officials, who are we to enforce our 'rights' to a private matter? This is a slippery slope, for if we overrule BP's privacy, then what's next?

BP has no "right to privacy" on public properties or waters. The only place BP as an entity can forbid photography is on BP property or posessions.

Mike

[Nesster]

With all due respect, sir, the oil IS BP's oil... and besides, do we really want sensationalist liberal media complicating an already difficult situation and driving off the remaining tourists, thus causing even greater economic damage to struggling American small businesses?

After all, whose interests are important here, those whose livelihoods derive from the area, or limousine-loving "journalists" from California and New York?

The problem with the rule of course is that it should be focal length driven: the longer the lens, the further off you have to be. Obviously the person drafting the rules has no background in photography.

(this is all tongue in cheek, in case anyone doesn't pick up on it)

~~~~~

Meanwhile we did get something from the ACLU, though a bit late:
ACLU Reminds Law Enforcement To Respect Media And Public Access To BP Oil Spill | American Civil Liberties Union

Responding to numerous reports of interference with the right to photograph and record on public beaches, today the ACLU of Louisiana released a public letter to the sheriffs of all Louisiana coastal parishes, reminding them of their obligation to respect the First Amendment rights of media and the public.

Marjorie R. Esman, Executive Director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said: "Public beaches remain open to the public, whether or not BP officials want them to be. BP may not want the public to know the full effects of the oil spill, but that is precisely why public access is so important. BP doesn't have the right to censor what people learn about the problem that it caused and that it must solve."

Reports range from deputies serving private details for BP and blocking access to beaches at Grand Isle, to deputies advising reporters that they shouldn't film because BP doesn't want them to. Television and magazine reporters, independent photographers, as well as volunteers for various agencies working as observers, have been told to stop their activities even though they have done nothing wrong.

As the effects of the oil spill grow more serious each day, it it essential for everyone to know what is happening to our public waters, our beaches, marches, and coastline. Esman continued: "In the United States, we value free access to information and we rely on an uncensored media to provide a full picture of matters of public importance. Answers are provided through more information, not less. The public has the right to know what's happening on the Louisiana coast. BP cannot impose its own rule of law on the people of Louisiana or the Gulf Coast, just because it doesn't want us to know what is going on."

Again, the main DRAMA for TV is well enough served by BP and Anderson Cooper's attempts to photograph the carnage, so they do not need to trot out the ACLU.

~~~~

Meanwhile, in order to provide the public appropriate information, BP is sending its own journalists to cover the clean-up:
BP Sends PR Professionals To Gulf Coast To Pretend To Be Journalists

~~~~

I'm really pissed at the Obama administration for seeming to go along with this charade. Though not necessarily surprised - Obama sees 'governing' as a special case, same as the presidents before him.