Double Shot
by Ashley Frazier
Chuck Olson is making a blogumentary, or a documentary about blogs. On May 5, 2003, he attempted to interview internet superstar Anil Dash on-camera at the SoHo Starbucks in NYC. For a full account and even the video you can visit the linked url, but to get right to the relevant point, after only a few minutes of filming, a staff member appeared and asked them to stop filming, informing them that it was against Starbucks company policy for them to do so. When they resisted, the staff member threatened to call the police. They did eventually stop filming.
Lawrence Lessig is a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. He is the Chairman of the Board of Directors for Creative Commons and also maintains a blog site. On May 23, 2003, he recounted two anecdotes about people he knew or had heard of who had been asked by staff or management, very rudely in one case, not to take photographs in Starbucks coffee shops. He finished his entry by musing:
I wonder what would happen if hundreds of people from around the country experimented this holiday weekend by taking pictures at their local Starbucks ...
His blog entry quickly began to fill with comments. Many people chimed in to agree that they had also been asked to stop when they broke out the lens in Starbucks locations worldwide. Others said they had taken photos in their favorite coffee shop without incident. Some people pointed out that it wasn't only Starbucks that prohibited photography in their shops, that many malls, stores, and restaurants have rules against taking photographs inside their places of business. Many complained that the rule was asinine and would be impossible to detect and enforce with the advent of stealthy camera phones. They planned guerilla trips to the local shop and sent the photos to the Lessig blog steadily over the weekend.
What also came up, and not all that infrequently, was the fact that Starbucks is a private business. Yes, a percentage of these angry young bloggers were willing to say the unpopular thing on Professor Lessig's site!
One brave commenter, Tommy Williams, said: "While it may seem absurd, Starbucks is perfectly within their rights to prohibit photography inside their stores: they can't stop you if you're on public property (such as a street or sidewalk) but they can absolutely stop you if you're inside their store. Whether this is a good business practice or not has nothing to do with their legal rights."
I didn't think it seemed all that absurd, the concept that Starbucks had the right to set rules inside their own place of business. Commenters also seemed to grasp this – I didn't see anyone arguing with it, in any case. They simply seemed pissed off about it. Further comments posted by "sam" seemed to confirm this:
Here is my thought about your question.. I don't think you can be arrested for violating corporate policy, because its just some silly policy, not a law. However, the company has the right to make the policy, and they have the right to refuse service to people who don't abide by the policy. Since they reserve the right to refuse service (and your very presence inside the building is part of the 'service' they offer), then if they choose to refuse service by asking you to leave because you took pictures, and you don't leave, then it is trespassing, and then they can call the police.
The police wouldn't come because of the camera or the pictures, they'd come because you were staying in a place that you were expressly told to leave, which would be trespassing. Its unlikely you'd actually get arrested unless you were being violent about it.
And no, private parties can't confiscate your personal property. They can ask you to leave / kick you out, but they can't steal your stuff, even if they threaten to.
I was a little surprised that nobody seemed to be suggesting a boycott! For, of course, that's typically the first place disgruntled activists want to start when it comes to big businesses. But these guys seem to, for the most part, genuinely like Starbucks. They're just mad about this damned no-cameras policy.
On May 27, 2003, Lawrence Lessig posted again about the Starbucks issue.
There were many in the comments to the challenge who suggested there was nothing wrong with Starbucks exercising control over its own property. Of course that is right. And of course it is right that Starbucks should have the right to control people who are bothering people with their cameras, just as Starbucks has the right to control people who are bothering others with a radio. And of course it is right that Starbucks has the right even to be extremist about it - banning anyone who clicks even a picture of a friend, invoking mysterious claims about security or trade-secrets.
But if they exercise these rights to an extreme, then of course we have the right to criticize their extremism.
So now we get to the heart of the matter. Exercising one's rights to an extreme. What is to be done when one party chooses to exercise their rights (which of course they have the right to do!) to an extreme? If these guys allow the market to punish Starbucks, then they will miss out on the pleasure of their mocha malt frappuccinos this summer! But if they want the frappuccinos, they've gotta go enjoy them in Starbucks without being able to capture those precious moments on film! What to do, what to do? Oh, to be able to have one's latte, and drink it, too.
Discuss this Article (3 messages)
|
