Porat v. Lincoln Towers Cmty. Ass’n - 

And for you all who think that picture taking in and of itself is "expression" better check out the thinking of an appellate court on the subject. In Porat, "Hobbyist" photography per se may not have protection by First Amendment. The Porat decision shows just how contemptuous can be a court to the right to "pursue happiness by photography". Simply because Porat failed to state an intention to publish, hobbyist activity did not obtain protection from the appeal court.

From the ruling of Federal case of Porat v. Lincoln Towers Cmty. Ass’n, No. 04Civ.3199, 2005 WL 646093, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. March 21, 2005)

see page 4, subpart C.

"To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the [*14] message is to be expressed. Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group, 515 U.S. 557, 568, 132 L. Ed. 2d 487, 115 S. Ct. 2338 (1995); Montefusco v. Nassau County, 39 F.Supp.2d 231, 242 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). 4 "Without an element of expression, there is no risk to the speaker or creator of art that his or her ideas or messages will be unlawfully extinguished . . . in contravention of the First Amendment." Id. (internal quotations omitted)."

" [*15] Plaintiff's Complaint satisfies neither element of this standard. He effectively disclaims any communicative property of his photography as well as any intended audience by describing himself as a "photo hobbyist," (Compl. P16), and alleging that the photographs were only intended for "aesthetic and recreational" purposes. (Compl., P26) Although Plaintiff cites a number of cases that protect photography under the First Amendment, each of these cases is distinguishable in that the "speaker" intended to communicate a message to an audience, an intent that is not alleged here."


"These cases all concerned protected First Amendment conduct not because the plaintiffs used cameras, but because the cameras were used as a means of engaging in protected [*17] expressive conduct. They do not, as Plaintiff suggests, stand for the proposition that the taking of photographs, without more, is protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the first element of the Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation standard, an interest protected by the First Amendment."

The Porat court clearly does not believe taking photographs, per se, is constitutionally protected.

Nothing contained herein is tendered as nor should it be considered as legal advice.  What is legal is not necessarily justice.  Almost all of reality is non-"published", ergo, what is legally affirmed is always a retarded misrepresentation of reality.   Use at your own risk!