tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2009-03-29 04:48:59 -0700, Neil Jones said:

Very interesting article.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Ph...ndment_ Right
NJ

Photography
is a First Amendment right, but there are some limitations -- the same
limitations that apply to all other First Amendment rights.

Certainly, police officers should have no expectation to a right not to
be photographed if they themselves are committing crimes such as
assault, conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights, corruption, and
abuse of authority. That is why we have a First Amendment in the first
place -- it is a tool to protect ourselves against tyranny. In this
case, the police were behaving tyrannically. Small wonder they hate the
First Amendment.

In the cases cited here, it was the police officers who were violating
the law, not the photographers. The police were merely angry because
the photographs were being used as evidence against them. Tough.

My son has a friend (a former class-mate) who is an undercover cop
working drug enforcement. During an arrest awhile back, some
bystander snapped some shots of the "perps" (1) being manhandled onto
the ground. My son's friend took the camera and reformatted the SD
card.(2)

The photographer squealed that he was photographing "police
brutality". The cop defended his action by saying that, as an
undercover cop, he should be able to protect his identity.

Both sides have a point. Police brutality should be exposed, (pun
intended) but arrestees don't always go along quietly. Undercover
drug agents are at risk if their identity is known.

(1) Love that cop talk!
(2) The cop is a pretty good amateur photographer and can work his way
around the Menu of any camera.


Undercover cops are really between a rock and a hard place all too
often. Having their cover blown can be suddenly fatal.
And a certain amount of force is easily justified in the case of drug
dealer arrests.