Note: this is a cross-post with my NPPA Blog.
The right to take pictures has been in the news so much lately that I feel I need to present it in the form of a police blotter. Please send tips to me at advocacy@nppa.org.
Note: this is a cross-post with my NPPA Blog.
The right to take pictures has been in the news so much lately that I feel I need to present it in the form of a police blotter. Please send tips to me at advocacy@nppa.org.
There is an interesting story in today’s New York Times about a growing profession of screeners whose job it is to look at social networking images and flag them for inappropriate content- pornography, violence and other disturbing images. Some of the work is outsourced, but some is done in-house, depending on the company needing the review.
Like journalists, many of these individuals suffer psychological consequences from constantly seeing disturbing images. Oddly the article doesn’t mention anything about how they handle referring illegal activity to law enforcement. But it is fascinating to realize that in a world where content is provided by the masses, there is still a level of gate-keeping.
This week, the broadcast of the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings provided a stark contrast to the dramatic events actually inside the Court on Monday. What came of it is one of the most elegant arguments for cameras in the Supreme Court that I have ever read.
Check out the article here.
Comments