Wednesday, 10 September 2014

"A message from the writer"

"A message from the writer"


This is paranoia on the part of politicians because of their unrepentant guilt as public figures.

Scared of being scrutinized by many because of their unpopular actions and self-profit, few of them  who are sick and tired of denials have afford to file a bill that been described as "An Act protecting against personal intrusion by any person with intent to gain or profit" that is, actually trying to invade one's privacy such as those whom are self-expressing in front of their own lenses and accusing them of taking pictures of someone no matter how uninvolve in that scene.  

Actually, as years passed by, from the dawn of printing to the use of modern-day gadgetry, they acknowledge the power of the people having technology in their hands; and they will try to suppress it as much as they can in the name of "order." 

And however good the intent of that bill is, such as those of protecting one's privacy, this writer, as well as others supporting, would like to raise some bones of contentions here, as according to the street photography site Malate:

1.) The bill will curtail press freedom and freedom of expression.
2.) Consent doesn't go with photojournalism in most cases. How does a journalist ask for consent from, say, an angry mob or trigger-happy men?
3.) This will make news photos and videos illegal. Do you stop media outfits from documenting actions of officials and minimize journalists’ access to information and proofs?
4.) The danger here is when hideous organizations/elements or the police itself prevent reporters from taking photos of their actions.
5.) Tourists may get caught up in this law and worse, give another blow to tourism.
6.) How do you ask permission from people in picturesque places? Or do you simply wait till the frame is cleared of every single body?
7.) Does it apply to CCTV cameras? Because it takes videos and pictures of people without their consent.
8.) How about TV cameras? Because they take close-up shots of audiences in a ballgame without their consent as well.

And if this writer nay add in regards to that post, does it include:

 Greasy persons scavenging in the street? 

A drunkard foreigner wandering carrying a bottle of a local gin? 

Or even this kid eating his lunch at Captain's Galley?

Again, the bill could be used as a tool for suppression on behalf of a rotten, repressive system guised as progressive and just. 

And there are no further words to say, except this:

No to House Bill No. 4807!
Uphold people's right to expression!