Sounds to me like the guard was just pissed than two lesbians were visiting the grave of a world-renowned author and public figure. He should have shuffled off to wherever he came from and continued drinking.

Well put. This issue at hand here has nothing to do with photographer’s rights or the First Amendment. It has to do with the fact that the security guard was a jerk and Kiernan didn’t like that. Boo hoo.

If it’s clearly posted, the security guard would have been correct to tell them the policy and ask them to comply. The real issue here seems to be not that the guard was enforcing an unpopular policy, but that he was being a prick.

I do get worked up about this, but I prefer to channel it through actual discussion rather than personal insults.

I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet.

I think your question would better be answered by those readers with law degrees. There are a few.

I personally believe the cemetery is allowed to impose certain restrictions, but I don’t believe they should be given the green light to restrict whatever they want.

Sure they can restrict alcoholic beverages, but should they restrict photography, which is protected under the First Amendment?

Then what else are they going to restrict? Hand-holding? Kissing? Praying?

There is just no common sense in them banning photography, especially considering the way they hype up the cemetery on their website through photographs.

What if I wanted to photograph one of my relative’s graves for memories? Are they going to kick me out?

What if I was photographing a funeral, which I’ve done before with the consent of the family?

Would the security guards drag me out during the burial?

You, as a fan of Lovecraft, could probably understand why people might want to photograph his grave.

As a Doors fan, I visited Jim Morrison’s grave twice in Paris, which was actually protected by a uniformed guard. However, he didn’t raise an issue when I photographed the grave.

And the cemetery guards didn’t mind that I also photographed Oscar Wilde’s grave in that same cemetery, as well as the graves of Sarah Bernhardt and Frederic Chopin.

Perhaps Paris is more progressive than Providence.

As for photos of Lovecraft’s grave, I did post one several (perhaps eight?) years ago:

http://www.hplovecraft.com/creation/sites/rhode.asp#Providence

This was long before it was Swan Point’s policy to disallow photography on their grounds. As I mentioned earlier, I have taken photographs on their grounds since then and, despite violating their policies, I support them. It’s their private property and if they want to eject people — or even prosecute them (though I doubt they’d do so) — for violating those policies, I think they’re entirely within their rights.

Why not post some of your photos of Lovecraft’s grave on your site?

Alcohol consumption can be considered a crime in many instances.

As of today, photography is not a crime. At least not in the law books.

So, are you claiming that Swan Point Cemetery cannot institute restrictions on the behavior of those who are permitted on their private property simply because it is open to the public? That’s like saying you should be allowed to drink alcohol in parks where signs indicate that you cannot, simply because they’re open to the public. There are some serious lapses of basic logic going on here…

Scott,

If my relative was a famous writer, I would be flattered that people were taking photos of his grave.

Even if my relative wasn’t a famous writer, I couldn’t care less if anybody was photographing their grave.

I mean, really, why would anybody care? People bury their relatives in cemeteries as a way to keep their memory alive. And that is exactly what a photograph does.

Donovan,

Generally, if a place open to the public,then it is legal to take photographs. This includes shopping malls, banks and office buildings.

I don’t see how cemeteries would be different.

Besides, cemeteries are one of the most common settings for photographers, which you can see if you just Google the words “photography” and “cemetery”.

open to the public

I think that the guard was out of line and it’s not in Swan Point’s best interests to employ someone like that. But everyone’s acting like Kiernan’s civil rights were violated. It’s quite clear to anyone who takes a moment to THINK about this issue that this simply wasn’t the case.