>>4373300>illegalwell you are on the internet now, so if you are in one of the *only* 3 countries where that is the case you should resist the urge to remind us all how retardedly convoluted your legal systems are.
If you are one of the people who has been stockhome syndromed into thinking such laws are good, or that public photography of people is evil, you should probably not participate in photography forums at all.
>free speech is badHerd mentality is bad. Determining 'Correct' by consensus, not reality, is bad. Civilisational-regression-tier bad. Every easily manipulated fuckwit ever presumes that *their* speech is the good type, and anything else must be silenced. This is precisely why its necessary.
>NAPIf you think photographing people in public is:
'initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property'
Then you should question yourself as to why you assume that to be the case. Are you a cunt who has taken or considers taking photos for that purpose? Becasue every person I have ever seen mention NAP, particularly in the context of photography, are nasty deviants who probably need to be locked up themselves.
I take photos of people because their appearance caught my attention, never because I thought they looked bad/fugly or was trying to incriminate or defame them somehow. It's not judgement, its observation. It's a compliment not an act of aggression. To even conceive of it being any other way casts a truly disturbing light on *you*.
I'm not the cunt taking pics of their mates sitting on the shitter, or secretly snapchatting others in an attempt to get them to socially ostracise themselves with some out-of-context woke bullshit. So I have to wonder: why would you assume everybody can only have this, or some other evil/perverse/hostile motivation and can't even imagine other, positive reasons?
It's because *you* are damaged.
