We're like an association of motorcyclists who insist that its members always wear their helmets while riding.
Indeed. Turkeys voting for Christmas/Thanksgiving.
No, you have twisted what I wrote. I would hope all photographers would be in favour of greater freedom to take photographs, which is different to encouraging people to break the law.
Yes, I do get it, that some photographers like and want restrictions.
Life is full of restrictions. It's not a matter really of whether you're in favour of them or not, it's more a matter of whether you're willing to respect them or not. The rights of a property owner to make any restrictions they want on the use of that property by other people is somewhat fundamental to the whole concept of property ownership. I suppose we could overthrow and reform that whole idea, but for myself, it's low down the list of priorities.
I don't think anything as fundamental and drastic as overthrowing the concept of property ownership is required.
The rights of a property owner to make "any restriction they want" are not absolute, though. If you make a policy that says "By setting foot into my shopping mall, you 'agree' to be my slave for life," your ownership of the mall does not make that policy ethically valid or legally enforceable. Nor should it.
Another example: If you put up signs in your mall's food court saying "Whites only" – like some restaurants in the South did in the 1950s – those signs would not stand. The right of citizens to be free from racial discrimination in commerce trumps your "right" to make "any restrictions [that you want]" on the use of that property.
I think planning committees have more urgent things to be bothered about than the addition of restrictions over what the land owner may restrict on a tiny group of people who don’t use camera phones to take photos. Dedicated camera sales are a tiny percentage of phone sales - why would anyone care ? ( outside of internet discussion forums obviously )
And that would apply if “using a dedicated camera to take photos” was a protected characteristic (in UK law - https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights ) but it’s not.
Actually planning laws are made by central government in the UK and local planning committees take decisions on the detail of the implementation; e.g. where the planning law requires that the landowner seek permission from the local planning committee. Planning committees have no power to create or change planning laws.
The right is not absolute, but there are only a few cases where it isn't. For instance, and owner cannot refuse a service (and access to property is a service) on the basis of a protected characteristic, such as race, gender, disability or sexual orientation. Adding 'being a photographer' to the list of protected characteristics is unlikely to happen. Otherwise the property owner can make any restrictions that they like. Whether such an implied contract is enforceable is another matter. Your example is about whether the restriction is enforceable, not whether or not it can be made.
That's a matter of whether the implied contract is enforceable or not, which is a different thing. I don't think it applies to 'no photography', or even 'no wearing red hats'.
Being able to do it and having a right to do it are very different things. It does open the question of how many property rights should be abolished because a lot of people might want to do it. It's one of these areas where peoples' attitude depends on whether they are talking about their own property or someone else's. If they only want it to apply to someone else's the question is how the law would be framed to exclude their property.
It has nothing to do with the law. It's about the fact that such laws, rules, and restrictions exist at all.
I find it curious as well. I'm totally against such restrictions as it smacks of "Big Brother" type control and a reduction of our freedoms. I also recognize that for private property the owner is within their rights to restrict photography even if I don't like it.
The second line is key, it’s private property, the owners can do what they want (within the law, local ordinances etc )
