Yes, I agree that Philip Turner should be allowed to photograph whatever he desires to take a picture of. Photography is essentally an extension of the First Amendment, and therefore any intrusion into this right on public property should be automatically deemed unconstitutional. However, if a private citizen were to ask Philip Turner to not photograph something on their own property, then the private citizen's wishes take precedent.
I believe Phillip Turner had every right to photograph absolutely anything he wanted to unless there was a law preventing him from doing so which there was not. Photography and/or videography are permitted in building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors and auditoriums of federal buildings. A police department does not have the right to prevent filming in the public areas of its facility.
Yes, Philip Turner has the right and should be allowed to photograph anything that he wants. That being said, he should be subject to the law and only photograph public places or events, or with the consent of individuals. It would not be right for Turner to photograph people without their knowledge and consent.
Philip Turner should be allowed to photograph anything he wants because the first amendment allows us certain unalienable rights, such as the freedom of speech. Photography is a form of speech and certain things must be documented no matter how gruesome it inappropriate they are. Turner should be allowed to photograph what he wants on those things alone.
If he take s a picture of someone and displays it without their permission or just takes a photo of someone who told him not to then the answer is no. His rights do matter but the rights of others matter too. Other than that if it is just an object or someone who said yes then that should be okay.