Top Searches of 2008 A Safari Through China’s Social Web I'm serious - It's a solar powered submarine Huffington Post Funding Higher Than Expected: $25 Million Twitter-based ad networks: a different perspective Mac Vs PC the Music Video Nokia iPhone Competitor on the way? 4 Reasons why online shopping sucks Blogging Advice from Blog Reviews
Category: Technology Author : Duncan Riley Posted: August 10, 2008
Tags : , , ,

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Mixx
  • del.icio.us
  • MySpace
  • Fark
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  • Propeller
  • Wikio
  • Yahoo! Buzz

For those who didn’t see the story on FriendFeed, Digg or BoingBoing, well known photographer Thomas Hawk was thrown out of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art this week for the crime of taking photos. Not an unusual case in itself in an age where the fear of copyright and privacy has overtaken the personal freedom to take pictures, however in Hawk’s case the Museum had posted publicly that it now allowed photography, Hawk had confirmed the rule directly with the museum, and Hawk had subsequently joined as a paid member of the museum due to the open photography policy.

Hawks full post here, but the short story is that Hawk was accosted by Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the Museum and escorted off the premises by a couple of paid goons, despite others in the museum taking pictures. Hawks crime may have been the use of a serious camera (a DSLR), but given Hawk had gone out of his way to confirm he was ok to take pictures, and had become a paid up member of the Museum, not just a walk in member of the public, leaves no excuse for what happened to him. If the policy did indeed prevent DSLR’s (that there would be a split is odd) then this should have been related clearly along the way, when it wasn’t.

Interestingly while Hawks post on the matter gained wide support, some have posted against it. Two people I respect Jeremiah Owyang and Cyndy Aleo-Carreira have come out against the post; Jeremiah on the basis that labeling someone in public an asshole damages the online reputation of Hawk, and Cyndy suggesting that it was “unprofessional” and that the response has been a mob reaction without all the facts.

The first point comes down to expressing a grievance in public. I’m reminded of the Burke quote “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Should the fear of professional reputation in the age of Google triumph over highlighting wrongs? I don’t believe that it should. Perhaps a better word than asshole could have been used, but that doesn’t cloud the fact that once again someone has been a victim of wrongdoing. Saying nothing and allowing wrongs to go unchallenged is a morally slippery slope that can only lead to an unquestioning state of totalitarianism. If free speech is a fundamental right in a democracy, we are always best served by practicing it.

Jeremiah suggests that in future that Hawk’s use of the word “will likely impact job screenings.” I could suggest humorously that I’m completely screwed on that front, but in an age that is now, to some degree, championing individual freedom of expression, will the use of the word really deliver that large an impact? And if it did, would Hawk really want to work for a company that believes that the best employees are those that remain silent, worker bees who strictly conform to a strict line of acceptability?

We are seeing a move away from the rigid perceptions of employment defined by the past. Companies are now starting to embrace social media, and encourage their employees to be online, even while at work. A feisty post from Thomas could demonstrate a passion for his art that may open news doors, as opposed to simply closing others. The line between work and home may be blurred for some, but from other employers it is encouraged, and as long as the employee doesn’t slight the company, there isn’t a problem.

I have some sympathy to Cyndy’s position. We don’t have both sides of the story, and there is ALWAYS another side. However, SF MOMA has had days now to respond, and have failed to do so. They may yet respond, but more likely is that they will remain silent, a typical response from an old fashioned institution that holds itself above others. I can’t find a lot of information of the Museum’s structure online, but at least part of their funding comes from the public, including subscriptions and possibly Government support. No matter what the percentage, any institution that takes public money should be accountable to some degree to the public. That Hawk’s post may have showed only one side is true, but what other way is there to hold institutions such as this accountable when they do the wrong thing? Would not this behavior continue without drawing attention to it?

Sometimes people get it wrong, sometimes it is unjust, but we are always better off highlighting injustices rather then to let them go unaddressed.

Update: Thomas Hawk has dropped asshole from the original post, and has more on the situation here.


Related Posts



Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I think Mr Hawk's omissions in his first post show he was willing to portray the situation dishonestly to make his point. Lets look at what he originally posted...

    Blint told me that "he did not care" and that he needed to "protect" his employees -- employees that might appear in my photographs. I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash. I was being quiet and respectful of the area and the other patrons.

    Now lets look at his correction (after being called on his initial omission)

    One allegation that has been raised is that Blint threw me out because he felt that I was shooting down a low cut blouse of one of his employees sitting in the atrium below where I was shooting. The photo above is a photo that I snapped of Blint as he was publicly admonishing me from the floor, that's him with his arms crossed there -- he's about the size of an ant in the photo. As you will see, the female employee in question also appears in the photograph (the ticket taker next to Blint). She is not wearing a low cut blouse. In fact she's wearing some sort of a yellowish/orangish sweater or jacket sort of thing -- she's sort of hard to see as a 14mm lens makes people look super far away. Her arms, shoulders, in fact every visible area of her except her hands are completely covered in clothing.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I think Mr. Blint over reacted. Had he kept his calm this might not have turned into a thing. Mr. Hawk claims not to have been taking pictures of the employee in question and says he offered to let Mr. Blint review the photos which is probably what Mr Blint should have done

    But that said, Mr. Blint thought he caught someone trying to take elicit pictures of one of his female staff and it seems to me that he was blinded by anger which is a perfectly understandable position to take. I think this was a big misunderstanding where I suspect tempers flared on both sides (Mr. Hawk claims to have been perfectly calm but his post on the subject suggests he wasn't)

    Had Mr. Hawk been completely honest in his original post I think most would have seen it as the misunderstanding it was.
    • ^
    • v
    "...what other way is there to hold institutions such as this accountable when they do the wrong thing? Would not this behavior continue without drawing attention to it?"

    There is (first) the option of working one-on-one, directly with the offending organization or individuals. That Hawk chose to immediately make this a public conflict, instead of at least attempting to wrest any acceptable result via direct interaction (including investigating whether he might be entitled to legal relief) shows that not every reasonable avenue was explored or used before resorting to (literal) name-calling. Whether he was wronged is an open issue, since we don't have all sides. But whether he had options other than publicly defaming someone whom he believes had wronged him, that is clear: he had other options but leapt straight to the blogger's prerogative: denouncing someone with whom he could at least have tried to resolve the conflict. By his own admission he threatened to blog about it before he was even ejected from the museum.

    He's allowed to blog, but it shouldn't be the first resort, especially if he's naming names. You can call this a "battle over personal rights and freedoms," but you still need to ask whether he exhausted other more reasonable means before taking it public.
    • ^
    • v
    I think given the circumstances, in which he attempted to ask the person in question to contact others there or go higher up the chain constitutes at least an attempt to keep it internal. Did they not escalate it first?
    • ^
    • v
    The SF MOMA has not had days to respond. This was posted on a Friday and it's now Sunday night. It is entirely possible that there is not an official response until the beginning of the work week.
    • ^
    • v
    Calling, last time I looked most museums are open on the weekend, indeed Sat/ Sun are usually the two busiest day. They may yet respond, but the longer they don't the more we only see one side of the story
    • ^
    • v
    Duncan > They may yet respond, but more likely is that they will remain silent, a typical response from an old fashioned institution that holds itself above others.

    Duncan, they are likely just an institution that does not have the resources to constantly monitor their brand (i.e. every blogger mentioning the word "MOMA"). Google has 30M results for "MOMA"... Yes, I understand there are some tools to bring down this number, but if I were funding MOMA, I'd object to them spending any time and effort on this. That's not their core business (and they will not get a visitor less, because of some "Thomas Hawk" speaking badly about them).

    You can consider not participating in the blog wars and bitch memes arrogant, but most people don't even know they exist -- much less would they find them relevant.

    We need to give the real world a chance to live their lives without forcing them to go virtual.
    • ^
    • v
    How odd, even when I accidently took a photograph where they weren't allowed, I was just cautioned and nothing more. :) Sheri

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus
View this post on FriendFeed
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:03 pm Thomas Hawk
    Thanks Duncan.
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:08 pm Duncan Riley
    Thomas, you're in the right on this one, so no probs at all. Hopefully what has happened sparks some deeper discussion about how copyright and privacy have gone to far as well. How have we moved to this state of fear today?
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:13 pm Ontario Emperor
    Steven Hodson rightly points out that Thomas Hawk is not the only one who has run afoul of authorities. One common thread in all of these incidents is an accusation that the photographic device is being used for some scary purpose - as a laser pointer, to take upskirt photos etc. This is then followed by silence from the accuser.
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:15 pm Morgan
    Saying Thomas is wrong simply for using the word asshole is dangerously myopic in the context of the battle for our personal liberty.
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:16 pm Jason Carreira
    There's 2 issues here: being in the right in the museum and being in the right in how to deal with being in the right in the museum. "Thomas" was probably right in the museum, but 100% wrong in the reaction and in calling out someone by name to then be harassed. Also, if you're going to call someone an asshole by name in public, man up and do it with your real name.
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:29 pm Morgan
    @jason - in reading the original post nowhere does "Thomas" remotely suggest any type of boycott, protest, or harassment against Blint/ MOMA. He doesn't ask anyone to support his cause, he simply tells his side of the story. In a world where "ass" "bitch" and other explicatives are routinely carried across drive-time airwaves, choosing "asshole" as a descriptor comes down more to a question of taste than a question of right vs. wrong. And it's hardly on the same level as the erosion of personal freedoms
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:35 pm Jason Carreira
    @Morgan, I have a longer history reading "Thomas"'s rants and diatribes. This is not an isolated incident, but rather a pattern, and one that has included calls for public mob action in the past, so "Thomas" has a feeling for how these things will play out. If I wanted to watch soap operas, I would.
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:37 pm Justin Korn
    @Jason - Thomas legally (by nature of his job) can not blog or participate online with his real name, however, if he could, I'm sure he would.
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:42 pm John Worthington
    Jason, please oh please tell us how you would have dealt with the situation. I am intrested in your stragery for dealing with this individual and how you would achieve effective change at SFMOMA, or indeed other places where photography is a crime, without using publicity. I want to know how you would defend everyone's constitutional rights by only making a whisper and how effective that would be. Throwing stones is fine but balls out yourself son.
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:46 pm Jason Carreira
    @John you're right, it's all a coincidence and "Thomas" is just a magical lightning rod for injustice.
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:48 pm John Worthington
    No, it's that Thomas is just one of the tallest lighting rods that everyone can see from the ground... still haven't given me your solution yet...
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:49 pm Jack Wilson
    Thomas' words might have carried more credibility had he not used the expletive, but that does not in any way diminish the treatment he recieved. The bottom line is that the museum had a stated public policy on photography and Mr. Blint was in the wrong.
  • August 10, 2008 at 5:51 pm John Worthington
    Jack, indeed. And since he acted as an individual, outside of the SFMOMA policy, he is right for a calling out.
  • August 10, 2008 at 6:19 pm Brandon Titus
    I think that what Thomas did was great. However, I think he should have been a little more careful about what he posted and his seemingly knee-jerk response. The Museum deserves everything they get though for the simple fact that they allow photography specifically where Thomas was taking photos and that he went out of his way to verify this and even became a member for this single fact. I would like to hear the Museum's side of the story and the PR people should respond as soon as possible.
  • August 10, 2008 at 6:34 pm Dave Martin
    Kudos, Duncan. Dugg it.
  • August 10, 2008 at 6:44 pm Charlie Anzman
    Well done Duncan
  • August 10, 2008 at 7:02 pm Sean McGee
    Best blog post I've read in a while...Your's and Thomas'...And who cares if Thomas called this guy out in public? If you're going to act like a douchbag, you should bend over and take it like the douchebag you are.
  • August 10, 2008 at 7:08 pm Cyndy
    SF MOMA is not a public facility. It is a private facility. And at the end of all this, what does anyone really think is going to happen? Are they going to prostrate themselves at everyone's feet begging for forgiveness? Or are they going to back to banning all photography in the facility simply because it's easier than dealing with this PR nightmare? Sometimes, all tht's necessary for the triumph of evil is for zealots to push too far.
  • August 10, 2008 at 7:36 pm Dave Martin
    @Cyndy. Just saying, museums are considered public places without regard to any proper legal standing. This should end with the institution affirming their posted permissions and taking whatever internal action they feel appropriate to prevent their policy being violated by their own hired help. In the least the employee might be placed on double-secret probation and become interested in seeking his fortune in a venture more attuned to his special gifts. May I suggest something in the penal system.
  • August 10, 2008 at 7:46 pm Andrew Feinberg
    We have a similar situation in DC with Union Station, a public building operated by a private company. IMHO, Employee (E) was out of line. Written communication between Thomas (T) and Museum (M) confirm photos OK. T takes photos. For any number of reasons, E throws him out, despite institution (M) having granted permission. Private property or no, a policy is a policy. That T is member might mean M in breach of contract, not to mention unlawful arrest (even for guards) and if they touched him, assault.
  • August 10, 2008 at 7:47 pm Sean McGee
    Cyndy: Good points. But how much injustice should an individual put up with? I'm sure you've read Thomas' posts in the past about run-ins with security and business owners. If it were me, I'd have done the same thing...maybe I'd have said "douchebag" instead of a-hole...but, injustices, no matter how minor they might seem, need to be called on the carpet. The more we ignore the injustices around us, the more injustice will flourish in our society.
  • August 10, 2008 at 7:52 pm Duncan Riley
    Cyndy, if it was a private company I'd have still made the same call, but the fact that there was at least some public funding to me should make it more accountable. As much as there is a broader debate on photography/ copyright privacy, take that aside and his treatment alone was appalling. No body likes goons throwing their weight around in a civil society, full stop.
  • August 10, 2008 at 7:53 pm Cyndy
    Sean, that's just it. As Jason points out, this isn't the first time. And yet I've known professional photographers as well as amateur photographers who've never had the same situations happen. There is a polite and professional way to handle things that wasn't this. And if it results in no photography allowed at all there, who wins?
  • August 10, 2008 at 7:57 pm John Worthington
    Cyndy, so what you are saying is that I shouldn't vigourusly stand up for my rights because there is a chance that others could fight back and possible take away more of my rights?
  • August 10, 2008 at 7:58 pm Sean McGee
    Well, if this results in "no photography" nobody wins on the photography front. But on the anti-douchebag front, Simon's name is etched in stone. It's a weird situation, because I can't stand people that abuse their authority. But at the same time, you're right in that sometimes, one person can ruin a good thing for the rest of us.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:02 pm Cyndy
    So the Internet has etched his name in stone for a bad day? John, what I'm saying is that there is a way to go about it without being a jerk in return. After the ludicrous amount of attention this has gotten, does anyone really think that SF MOMA will respond in a nice way? A pound of flesh has been demanded, and that's going to put them on the defensive.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:04 pm Dave Martin
    So far it comes down to one guy going off the rez. What owner of any business would not want to hear about an employee treating a customer badly. Getting this story out there amounts to a public service. Boil it down. What happened here was an employee violated a posted policy and did so acting in a rude and inappropriate manner. What's important is what happens next. Stay tuned.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:04 pm Jason Carreira
    @John, I think the point is there's ways to do things without being inappropriate. I've been harassed by security guards at the back of Federal buildings and across the street from secure military contractor sites when taking photos. In neither case was I detained or escorted from the premises. There's ways of talking to people and then there's ways of confronting people. If you don't get the response you feel you should, take it up with management later.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:06 pm Jason Carreira
    Causing a confrontation and then publicly calling out a person and institution is more likely to get a negative, defensive reaction, rather than a thoughtful response that might improve the situation. Being rude and belligerent only reflects poorly on photographers.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:08 pm Sean McGee
    Cyndy...a "bad day" is still not an excuse. I'm sure Don Imus had a bad day with the "hoes" incident...I'm sure Jesse Jackson had a bad day when he used the very word he fights against...If this had happened to me, I would be blaming myself and not the interwebs for the consequences. You reap what you sow. Are you saying that had he committed even a minor criminal act, the "bad day" defense would excuse his actions? Actions have Consequences.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:09 pm John Worthington
    Jason, I too have been confronted many times with security gaurds and parents. I often took the action you suggested where I left and took it up with higher authorities later... but I have since stopped that. Why? Because by not standing up for my rights, I am reenforcing to those people that their actions are just and that what I am doing is wrong. And it also allows this to happen to others. I refuse to be made to feel like a pedofile or a threat when I am exercising my right to produce and express my art
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:11 pm Jason Carreira
    I didn't say to say nothing, but to be polite and informative of how public photography is ok, but when faced with someone who is not going to accept that, why continue to argue? They're not going to change their mind, and you're only going to hurt your case.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:12 pm Brian Norwood
    Being asked to surrender my camera or media, or being asked to leave a public place because of my camera is likely to get a negative reaction. Jason is so busy hating "Thomas Hawk" (who cares who he really is?) he's painting over the fact a photographer was asked to leave a place he was explicitly allowed to be. Like using a pen (or shutter) name is new or controversial. For a while I went by Christopher Woods to make a separation between my fine art and decorative paintings. It's not an evil conspiracy.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:14 pm Jason Carreira
    Here's a hypothetical scenario for you.... let's say a celebrity goes to SFMOMA and everyone breaks out Canon 5D's and (with no flash) starts taking pictures of the celebrity. The celebrity is going to be unable to enjoy the works of art. While the photographers are technically not breaking any rules, if they are somehow interfering with other patrons enjoyment, what should the management do? I'm sure someone complained to management about "Thomas" so what were they to do?
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:19 pm Jason Carreira
    @Brian, I don't hate "Thomas", but I'm tired of the bullshit. It's not helpful to the cause. I'm tired of the martyrdom. I'm tired of the blind mob mentality rallying to the attack and not questioning. I also think it's incredibly cowardly to defame a person's reputation publicly from behind a psuedonym. I doubt "Thomas" would have used that language to a person's face, so doing it from behind a keyboard stinks.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:19 pm John Worthington
    But your scenario glosses over the fact that Canon 5D's are allowed in the SFMOMA according to thier guidelines, no charges of annoyance was conveyed to TH by Blint. If your 'celebrity' was to make a complaint, and that was conveyed as the reason for asking you to leave then yes but making a blanket ban cause someone would get offened is over kill. Plus the policy applies to the Attrium... I beleive this is a meeting space rather than the gallery 'proper'
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:20 pm Jason Carreira
    You assume no-one complained. I'd bet someone did.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:22 pm Sean McGee
    Jason...who cares about celebrities? They deserve any harassment they receive. It comes with the territory. Just like when you're the Director of Visitor Relations and you eject a photography rights activist from your publicly funded facility and then he blogs about it...it comes with the territory. Why are there some STILL defending this douche? I don't get it. Since when does anyone care if a douche gets ripped a new one? Do we have douchebag rights activists now?
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:22 pm John Worthington
    If they did complain then that should have been conveyed to TH as the reason for his ejection. He was ejected because 'this type of photography is not allowed (DSLR)' and 'Blint suggested TH was taking photos down people's tops'.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:22 pm Jason Carreira
    So rights are only for some people. Interesting world you live in.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:24 pm Robert Scoble
    Jason: you then work with your customers to solve the problem. If you have someone who wants privacy then you find a way to serve them. For instance, you could make one hour a day camera free. Celebrities often get private viewings, for instance. But if you have a policy that says that cameras are OK you can't change that because of complaints on the spot. Many museums allow photos, including the Louvre in Paris.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:24 pm Jason Carreira
    @John, I'm sure it's that 2nd reason that was the reason for the complaint. Right or wrong I bet another SFMOMA visitor felt uncomfortable.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:26 pm John Worthington
    Nice bait, not gonna take it though... The celebs is a red herring. Any one who has a complaint about another persons behaviour should be able to report it and the person should be given an oppertunity to hear the accusations, with a right of reply, before being ejected.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:26 pm Jason Carreira
    @Robert, I'm sure they're reviewing their policies. Hopefully it won't end with a no photography rule, but if it does, I'd put some of the blame on Hawk's shoulders.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:27 pm Sean McGee
    This is going to get ugly really quick, so I'll be the bigger one and not carry this to the next level. No matter what you think of Thomas blogging about this, the fact remains that Blint's actions were inexcusable. Inexcusable means there is no viable excuse for his actions. "Bad Day" is not an excuse. Now, if someone calls him an asshole or a douchebag, that makes sense to me. Blint's actions are understandable coming from an asshole or a douchebag.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:27 pm John Worthington
    Jason, it was a staff member (says Blint) and she was wearing a jumper + scarf... Facts my friend.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:27 pm Louie
    Cyndy & John +983755509325453 The rest of you seem to be too caught up in an emotional knee-jerk reaction to Thomas' digital call to arms, to think clearly. We don't have all of the information and this lynch mob was created off of one man's rant. The inflamatory language of his original post and threat that he was going to blog about it, doesn't do much to prove himself to be the innocent victim that he claims to be.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:29 pm Jason Carreira
    @John, if you had been contacted by an upset customer and you were in Blint's position, and Hawk was standing up there continuing to take pictures of you while you're trying to talk to him, do you think that would make you more or less interested in hearing what he had to say? A confrontation was created, but not all on one side.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:29 pm John Worthington
    'Blog about it' is today's I'm writing a 'letter to the editor'.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:32 pm John Worthington
    But TH was technically still a customer and deserves the same rights of a fair hearing as the accuser.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:32 pm Louie
    Don't you people realize that this is a classic example of someone spinning a story by omitting facts so that you feel sorry for them? Some of you may have been out of the dating game too long to remember this, but it happens all the time. Oh, it was horrible, he treated me bad, we got in arguments, blah blah blah... woe is me. Then you find out, hmm... little miss innocent isn't the fairy she portrayed herself to be, in reality.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:35 pm Louie
    Other companies may have a different policy, but where I work, if an employee feels harassed/violated in any way by a customer, that customer is ejected from the premises IMMEDIATELY. It could be quite possible that the female employee, referenced in the director's reasoning, was the one to make a complaint about Thomas and his DSLR aimed at her direction from above.
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:37 pm John Worthington
    Guilty until proven Innocent? There's some rights for you Jason
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:39 pm Jason Carreira
    Was "Thomas" sent to prison? Talk about hyperbole... you've learned well from "Thomas"
  • August 10, 2008 at 8:49 pm John Worthington
    You are right Jason. I was wrong. Thomas (My gawd he doesn't even use his own name!) did the wrong thing. He shouldn't have made a fuss about it. Maybe I should ask a few people only to ride at the back of the bus and tell my wife she can't vote. Hell I can get my 2 year old daughter to work in a sewing house in 3 years. Now THAT's hyperbole...
  • August 10, 2008 at 9:08 pm Ontario Emperor
    About an hour ago, Jason suggested that Thomas Hawk should have taken this up with management. However, Blint IS managment. As the Director of Visitor Relations, he is the person responsible for Hawk's experience at the museum. Well, we'll have to wait and see what Blint says about this. Since (to my knowledge) he didn't say anything over the weekend, presumably he'll make a statement Monday. He will, won't he?
  • August 10, 2008 at 9:26 pm Brian Norwood
    Yes, Jason. You hate a certain fake named photographer. And, that's ok. I don't care. Let's move past it. This is one, and only one example of an increasingly frequent scenario. Property held in public trust, public property, the beach, the mall. We have the right to shoot photos ANYWHERE a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That includes property held in public trust, public property, the beach, the mall. And, it is being taken away from us.
  • August 10, 2008 at 9:55 pm Brandon Titus
    The real story here is the power of bad publicity. Whether or not this story happened as Thomas told it is almost irrelevant. The internet is becoming a more and more powerful medium for stories like this to get out of hand and quickly destroy the reputation of people or businesses and establishments like this museum should quit ignoring it and hire someone to work solely on conversing with the online community and ensuring their reputation.
  • August 11, 2008 at 3:57 am gregory lent
    @brandontitus hard to stop the neighborhood gossips, how to stop the internet? both people lost in this engagement.
  • August 13, 2008 at 4:28 am Leather Donut
    Personally, I think Andrew Peterson is an asshole. Just saying, ya know?

Add a comment on FriendFeed