WTF ? Racial discrimination of Dolce & Gabbana in Hong Kong - Page 4

As far as I know, taking pictures in shopping malls and stuff is not allowed in most places. This including U.S., Europe and most western countries. For all races.
Should HK be any different?

how is that possible? Like I said about the grocery store in BKK or the SOGO in TPE they can claim it's private property, our IP, blah, blah blah but they have no authority to stop you from taking pictures. I've done it many times.... It's like the guy at the door at Home Depot asking to see your receipt upon leaving.... fuck off. (Home Depot guy.... not u Kurtz )

Actually, it is comprehensively discussed in a documentary about shopping malls (Malls' R'Us, I believe).

^ hmmm..... ok ... I'll have to check that out. Sounds interesting... thx!

I don't think HK is any different. Places like shopping malls, department stores, etc. are private property, they can impose whatever rules they like, no photography, no smoking, no baseball caps, no hoodies, no sneakers, no dogs, no Chinese, whatever.



I think the problem was D&G were trying to impose their no photography rules on a public street, outside of their store, where they have NO business imposing such rules.
Edited by MikeDT - 1/21/12 at 11:45pm

If Home Depot did have a no photography rule inside their stores and you did start taking photographs, they would be pefectly within their rights to stop you, similarly with any other rules they might impose inside their stores, e.g. no smoking. Now if you were on the public street outside, you could indeed tell them to "Fuck off, non of your damn business!".

Rather like restaurants that require patrons to wear a jacket and tie. No jacket and tie, you wont get seated or served. Their place, their rules. Don't agree with the rules, go somewhere else.

BTW Chinese supermarkets check and stamp receipts at the exits. If one hasn't made any purchases, it's not a problem though.
Edited by MikeDT - 1/21/12 at 10:44pm

didn't bruce lee took down that sign, after kicking a japanese guy's ass and scaring the sikh security guard away?

ya it is kind of a fine line tho'. Like the SOGO in Taipei tries to enforce the no pix rule even outside the mall. They don't want people taking pix of Chanel and Hermes ...but it's outside on the plaza connected to the MRT (subway) station, not in the actual store. The Home Depot thing I actually heard on NPR... it was really an interesting legal question as the reporter was stating that since he had fulfilled the "contract" of exchange (money for goods), he has no obligation (legal, in-store, or otherwise) to prove his ownership upon leaving as the transaction has been recorded, it's in a bag, etc. Sure there are cracks in this... a grey area of sorts.
It's not so different from the "stop and identify" statute of Terry v. Ohio... w/o probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion ( I know another "grey" area ) a police officer has no authority to stop you, question you, ask your name or demand to see identification. Not to be overly Orwellian here, but in a larger context it is these small erosions of privacy, personal space and individual integrity that people are too easily giving up that actually kind of scares me. In another related WSJ (I think?) story last week a couple photogs in LA were arrested and detained for a long time for taking nighttime pix of some industrial structures. They were both Parson's MFA grads and were just doing their jobs... taking pix for some artistic project. They were arrested and detained on some Patriot Act terrorism bullshit that obviously was not legit. Lawsuit to follow I believe. anyway...