Photography is not a crime
I want to thank the VND and reporter Liz Hayes for covering the case of photographer Gary Sprague (“Photographer stands his ground,” Oct. 30). This is a case of injustice; no crime was committed. It frustrates me that a security guard at a power plant assumes a person carrying a camera is up to no good and treats him like a common criminal.
When did photography become a criminal act? These people use Sept. 11 as an excuse to violate our rights. Photographers are not terrorists. We record the world around us and share it with others; we bare witness; we capture moments in time that sometimes change the world. This is wrong, and it should have never come to this.
Go to Google and type in “Conemaugh power plant.” You will see plenty of photos taken of this plant.
These heavy-handed tactics will only backfire on the plant's owner, NRG Energy. This company can ill afford more bad press — I guess the $5 million fine for polluting the Conemaugh River wasn't enough. Does the company also want a civil rights violation?
Instead of pursuing this frivolous case, NRG should drop the charges and offer to purchase Gary's photos for its annual report. These are excellent photos!
The writer is the president of the New Kensington Camera Club.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Good riddance
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Punishment pushback I
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Youth & work ethic
- Beware this Wolf I
- Don’t blame bus drivers II