Over the last few days, I have finally remembered why I went to law school to become a lawyer.
Several days ago, Thomas Hawk, a prominent blogger and photographer, was thrown out of the San Francisco Museum of Modern Arts. Simon Blint, a SFMOMA employee, accused Hawk of taking inappropriate pictures of female employees or guests. Hawk offered to show Blint his pictures to prove he was not taking inappropriate pictures but Blint refused to look at them. Blint ejected Hawk. Hawk blogged about the incident which attracted the attention of the blogosphere. Today, SFMOMA released a statement in which they fully supported the actions of Blint.
SFMOMA is wrong. I believe Hawk's version of the events. Why? He has evidence to support his version of the events while SFMOMA doesn't. Hawk has publicly posted the pictures he took at the museum at the time that Blint accused him of taking inappropriate pictures. These photos demonstrate that he was taking pictures with a wide angle lens. It would have been impossible for him to take the types of pictures that the museum staff accused him of taking.
In their statement, the museum fully supports Blint and again accuses Hawk of taking inappropriate pictures of the staff and of the guests. However, they do not address that fact that Blint would not even look at the pictures before ejecting Hawk. Further, they do not say anything that would rebut the version of events that Hawk gave. Also, they do not address Hawk's proof, that is, the pictures which show that he could not have been taking the pictures that they accused him of taking.
Wrongs like this happen all of the time and it infuriates me. Most people would simply have been ejected and it would have been the end of the story. Hawk happened to be a blogger who was able to attract some attention, but the average Joe would not have been able to. Furthermore, in their statement, SFMOMA appears to libel Hawk.
Anyway, I went to law school so that when shady stuff like this happens, I could do something about it. If I had a law license, which is hopefully arriving in November, I would be emailing Hawk right now and offering to represent him. I hope he hires a good lawyer and sues the hell out of SFMOMA.
3 comments:
Ummm... safer make that a letter with "Advertising" across the envelope.
And what about any contract the photographer may have "agreed" to by entering the museum, such as the museum can throw him out for any reason?
I probably should have mentioned the cause of action I would sue for. Defamation (based on the statements in the press release about him taking inappropriate pictures). Because it is written, it would be libel and special damages would not have to be proven.
Of course, I agree with you that under property law Hawk is a licensee and can be ejected at anytime. Although, under contract, he would probably be able to at least recover the admission price. Even if the contract may have given the museum the ?right? to kick him out, he could still likely recover based on unjust enrichment.
Ahhh. Glad you explained the cause of action; I was wondering about that.
Post a Comment