Thanks Duncan. - Thomas Hawk

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? - Duncan Riley

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. - Ontario Emperor from fftogo

Saying Thomas is wrong simply for using the word asshole is dangerously myopic in the context of the battle for our personal liberty. - Morgan

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. - Jason Carreira

@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 - Morgan

@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. - Jason Carreira

@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. - Justin Korn

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. - Johnny Worthington

@John you're right, it's all a coincidence and "Thomas" is just a magical lightning rod for injustice. - Jason Carreira

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... - Johnny Worthington

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. - Jack Wilson

Jack, indeed. And since he acted as an individual, outside of the SFMOMA policy, he is right for a calling out. - Johnny Worthington

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. - Brandon Titus

Kudos, Duncan. Dugg it. - Dave Martin

Well done Duncan - Charlie Anzman

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. - Cyndy

@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. - Dave Martin

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. - Andrew Feinberg

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. - Duncan Riley

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? - Cyndy

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? - Johnny Worthington

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. - Cyndy

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. - Dave Martin

@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. - 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. - Jason Carreira

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 - Johnny Worthington

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. - 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? - 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. - Jason Carreira

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' - Johnny Worthington

You assume no-one complained. I'd bet someone did. - Jason Carreira

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'. - Johnny Worthington

So rights are only for some people. Interesting world you live in. - Jason Carreira

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. - Robert Scoble

@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. - Jason Carreira

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. - Johnny Worthington

@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. - Jason Carreira

Jason, it was a staff member (says Blint) and she was wearing a jumper + scarf... Facts my friend. - Johnny Worthington

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. - Louie

@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. - Jason Carreira

'Blog about it' is today's I'm writing a 'letter to the editor'. - Johnny Worthington

But TH was technically still a customer and deserves the same rights of a fair hearing as the accuser. - Johnny Worthington

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. - 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. - Louie

Guilty until proven Innocent? There's some rights for you Jason - Johnny Worthington

Was "Thomas" sent to prison? Talk about hyperbole... you've learned well from "Thomas" - Jason Carreira

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... - Johnny Worthington

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? - Ontario Emperor from fftogo

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. - Brandon Titus