Photography is Not a Crime, It's a First Amendment Right

Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to
your right to photograph any damned thing you want.

Photography is a right, but it may be restricted under
certain
conditions. (US)

Sorry, but photography is NOT a right, it is a privilige under the
more general right of freedom of expression. No Bill of Rights
protection including such commonly cited examples such as privacy and
freedom of expression are absolute. Any number of situations may
limit the ability to claim your "right" to take pictures including
the obvious examples of when it violates the rights, protections, or
freedoms or others or when there are private property considerations
or governmental and security situations. But, in the end, in order to
fully determine whether one does or does not have the "right" to take
photographs in a given situation, one must either take the photos and
deal with possible criminal or civil actions brought against them if
applicable or ask for/apply for permission ahead of time. In any
event, only a judge can completely answer the question and even then,
it may take a case brought before a Federal district or appellate
court or even the Supreme Court in order to cite precedent(s) one
claims support their "right".

I should also point out that there are NO absolute rights under the
constitution as one must first look to applicable Federal, state,
and/or local laws, presidential executive orders, rules and
regulations by the many agencies in each level of government, etc.
But, if you want to risk jail time, loss of money, or maybe just a
punch in the nose, why go ahead and assert your "right" after someone
in a believed position of authority has told you to cease and desist.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my
enemy, but the friend of my enemy is also my enemy" - variant of
Middle East Maxim

Chris H wrote:
In message , Chris Malcolm
writes
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Martin Brown
wrote:

I suspect even in US law there are plenty of places where the
private ownership of land creates a zone where you can visit freely
but photography is not permitted by the owner. Shopping malls,
large stores and supermarkets often fall into this category in
Europe.

And often what are thought of as public parks. In some old cities
there are also sometimes anomalous bits of streets which belong to
the owner of the adjacent property, due to nobody ever having
bothered to shift ownership to the public authority. The owner is
often some public service organisation such as railways, post
office, local authority, power, etc.. Those create useful little
spots where the police can't move you on unless the property owner
specifically requests them to do so, so are often used as the
gathering places for political demonstrations.

On the other hand the owner of these "public" places such as shopping
malls, churches, parks etc can restrict photography (and almost
anything else) .

It is largely academic these days with high megapixel mobile phones
and very small compact cameras. If you want to take pictures or
video in a no photography zone it is easy enough to do so without
being noticed.

The silly thing is that the police and other "security" forces often
ignore people photographing the scene with compact cameras and mobile
phones, and pounce on the person with a conspicuous big black camera
with knobs on.

This happens often

They seem to think that people who want to take
photographs for illegal purposes would of course be very likely to
use the most conspicuous kind of camera in a conspicuous fashion,
and be most unlikely to use an insconspicuous camera unobtrusively.

This seems to be a universal trend.
Really they should be monitoring all people in Internet cafes who use
Google Earth etc Remote monitoring from an anonymous computer... Do
Internet cafes have CCTV? Most Libraries don't

Of course they don't think that! Even policemen aren't as stupid as
that!

Poor naive fool :-)

No, what they think is that the user of a big black camera with knobs
on is more likely to be associated with the press, and so more likely
to publish an embarrassing photograph.

I am sorry that is just plain wrong. Our officers work to the highest
standards and never do anything wrong, suspect or not in the public
interest. (That is apart from those that got caught being
misunderstood by the press, public and a judge.)

But since there are no laws to
prevent the embarrassment of officialdom they just use any convenient
legislation such as anti-terrorist.

That is an unfair and cynical attack on our wonderful police force
that is based entirely on facts and [photographic/video] evidence

In a recent Jobs-worth /petty-offical attack on a transporter voiding
trains the statement of the railway company as to the behaviour of the
transporter was completely at odds with the video evidence :-) The
local newspaper and TV companies put up the statement and the video
side by side ion their web sites :-)))))

Forgive my American-ness but what does "transporter voiding trains" mean?
The image that American usage brings up is a large truck (in the sense of a
lorry--I don't know if "truck" has another meaning in the UK) holding a
paper punch punching holes in the train, and I'm pretty sure that can't be
right.

On 2009-03-29 16:56:00 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

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.

the cop was very clearly in the wrong.

That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.

he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not just
photos of himself but everything
else that was on it.

The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
Constitutional rights.

There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
police officer.

Absolute rubbish. The photographer was not interfering with a police
officer. He was not trying to prevent the arrest. Further, the officer
broke laws against the destruction of private property. He also
violated the photographer's civil rights -- rights that have been
established and upheld in case law for centuries.


Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.

Rubbish. Free speech absolutely applies here.


That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.

Rubbish. Every drug dealer in town now knows that this guy is a cop,
photograph or not.


that's wonderful, but he broke the law.

You're throwing **** against the wall with a statement like that.
What law was broken?

Destruction of private property. Illegal seizure of private property.
Threatening a photographer. Depriving a photographer of his civil
rights. Assault on a photographer who was breaking no laws.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

In message , J. Clarke
writes
Chris H wrote:
In message , Chris Malcolm
writes
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Martin Brown
wrote:

I suspect even in US law there are plenty of places where the
private ownership of land creates a zone where you can visit freely
but photography is not permitted by the owner. Shopping malls,
large stores and supermarkets often fall into this category in
Europe.

And often what are thought of as public parks. In some old cities
there are also sometimes anomalous bits of streets which belong to
the owner of the adjacent property, due to nobody ever having
bothered to shift ownership to the public authority. The owner is
often some public service organisation such as railways, post
office, local authority, power, etc.. Those create useful little
spots where the police can't move you on unless the property owner
specifically requests them to do so, so are often used as the
gathering places for political demonstrations.

On the other hand the owner of these "public" places such as shopping
malls, churches, parks etc can restrict photography (and almost
anything else) .

It is largely academic these days with high megapixel mobile phones
and very small compact cameras. If you want to take pictures or
video in a no photography zone it is easy enough to do so without
being noticed.

The silly thing is that the police and other "security" forces often
ignore people photographing the scene with compact cameras and mobile
phones, and pounce on the person with a conspicuous big black camera
with knobs on.

This happens often

They seem to think that people who want to take
photographs for illegal purposes would of course be very likely to
use the most conspicuous kind of camera in a conspicuous fashion,
and be most unlikely to use an insconspicuous camera unobtrusively.

This seems to be a universal trend.
Really they should be monitoring all people in Internet cafes who use
Google Earth etc Remote monitoring from an anonymous computer... Do
Internet cafes have CCTV? Most Libraries don't

Of course they don't think that! Even policemen aren't as stupid as
that!

Poor naive fool :-)

No, what they think is that the user of a big black camera with knobs
on is more likely to be associated with the press, and so more likely
to publish an embarrassing photograph.

I am sorry that is just plain wrong. Our officers work to the highest
standards and never do anything wrong, suspect or not in the public
interest. (That is apart from those that got caught being
misunderstood by the press, public and a judge.)

But since there are no laws to
prevent the embarrassment of officialdom they just use any convenient
legislation such as anti-terrorist.

That is an unfair and cynical attack on our wonderful police force
that is based entirely on facts and [photographic/video] evidence

In a recent Jobs-worth /petty-offical attack on a transporter voiding
trains the statement of the railway company as to the behaviour of the
transporter was completely at odds with the video evidence :-) The
local newspaper and TV companies put up the statement and the video
side by side ion their web sites :-)))))

Forgive my American-ness but what does "transporter voiding trains"
mean?
Sorry "train spotter voiding trains"
a train geek who collects train serial numbers and photographs them

The image that American usage brings up is a large truck (in the sense
of a lorry--I don't know if "truck" has another meaning in the UK)
holding a paper punch punching holes in the train, and I'm pretty sure
that can't be right.

:-)))))


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:29:46 -0500, HEMI-Powered wrote:

Hell of a stretch to get from freedom of speech and press to your right
to photograph any damned thing you want.

Photography is a right, but it may be restricted under certain
conditions. (US)

Sorry, but photography is NOT a right, it is a privilige under the more
general right of freedom of expression. No Bill of Rights protection
including such commonly cited examples such as privacy and freedom of
expression are absolute. Any number of situations may limit the ability
to claim your "right" to take pictures including the obvious examples of
when it violates the rights, protections, or freedoms or others or when
there are private property considerations or governmental and security
situations. But, in the end, in order to fully determine whether one
does or does not have the "right" to take photographs in a given
situation, one must either take the photos and deal with possible
criminal or civil actions brought against them if applicable or ask
for/apply for permission ahead of time. In any event, only a judge can
completely answer the question and even then, it may take a case brought
before a Federal district or appellate court or even the Supreme Court
in order to cite precedent(s) one claims support their "right".

There is no constitutional grant of "freedom of expression" - it is
specifically spelled out as "freedom of speech". The framers of the
constitution were intelligetn enough to know the difference between
"expression" and "speech" - if they had intended the former, they would
have explicitly said so.


I should also point out that there are NO absolute rights under the
constitution as one must first look to applicable Federal, state, and/or
local laws, presidential executive orders, rules and regulations by the
many agencies in each level of government, etc. But, if you want to risk
jail time, loss of money, or maybe just a punch in the nose, why go
ahead and assert your "right" after someone in a believed position of
authority has told you to cease and desist.

The oft cited example of limitation of freedom of speech is - crying
"fire" in a crowded theater.

On 3/30/09 10:15 AM, in article
2009033008153116807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

On 2009-03-29 16:56:00 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:47:39 -0700, nospam
wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:

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.

the cop was very clearly in the wrong.

That's a matter of judgement. I disagree.

he does *not* have the right to reformat the card, destroying not just
photos of himself but everything
else that was on it.

The bystander has no "right" to take the photographs. A "right" is
something granted to you by law. Our "rights" descend from the
Constitution and the laws passed later that are in alignment with our
Constitutional rights.

There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
police officer.

Absolute rubbish. The photographer was not interfering with a police
officer. He was not trying to prevent the arrest. Further, the officer
broke laws against the destruction of private property. He also
violated the photographer's civil rights -- rights that have been
established and upheld in case law for centuries.


Don't give me the 1st Amendment story. That's the right of free
press and gives the press the right to publish a photograph. There
are many laws that restrict photography. Free speech doesn't apply.

Rubbish. Free speech absolutely applies here.


That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.

Rubbish. Every drug dealer in town now knows that this guy is a cop,
photograph or not.


that's wonderful, but he broke the law.

You're throwing **** against the wall with a statement like that.
What law was broken?

Destruction of private property. Illegal seizure of private property.
Threatening a photographer. Depriving a photographer of his civil
rights. Assault on a photographer who was breaking no laws.
I must agree with you, CJ.

In some instances, the camera works against a rogue cop, as in the case of
Houston Texans running back, Ryan Moats, who last week was bullied by an
a-hole who wouldn't let him see his dying mother-in-law. The dash-cam
provided justice...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6349305.html

Chris H wrote:
In message , Martin Brown
writes
nospam wrote:
In article , tony cooper
wrote:

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.
the cop was very clearly in the wrong. he does *not* have the right to
reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
bystander.

No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property.

As is deleting the picture so I am told be legal people. At least in the UK

Only if he actually succeeded in deleting the images... which delete all
seldom does. Unlike with film deliberately exposed to light you could
recover deleted digital images. Film is a lot more fragile in this respect.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:15:31 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

There is no extant law that gives you a right to take photographs. We
depend on the lack of a law prohibiting the taking of photographs to
allow us to do so. There are laws regarding interference with a
police officer.

Absolute rubbish. The photographer was not interfering with a police
officer. He was not trying to prevent the arrest.

This was an error on my part in constructing the paragraph. I did not
think that taking the photograph was obstructing the officer. I was
thinking along the line of what laws are spelled out, and interference
is one that is.


That's not the identity issue in question. What the undercover drug
cop wants to avoid is the distribution of his photograph where he can
be recognized by other drug dealers and users. A photograph of an
undercover cop circulated around would limit his effectiveness as a
cop, and quite possibly put him in danger.

Rubbish. Every drug dealer in town now knows that this guy is a cop,
photograph or not.

You're making assumptions. If you can, I can. I would doubt that
many in the immediate area, if using drugs, could pass along a
description of their own mother. They could pass along a photograph.

It seems you are using "drug dealer" to describe some kind of kingpin
distributor. Most "dealers" that are arrested are users who sell in
order to supply their own needs.

There's no need to label my responses as "rubbish". Just state your
case and avoid the personal ad hominums. This isn't D-Mac vs Annika.







--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2009-03-30 01:16:28 -0700, Martin Brown
said:

nospam wrote:
In article , tony cooper
wrote:

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.

the cop was very clearly in the wrong. he does *not* have the right to
reformat the card, destroying not just photos of himself but everything
else that was on it. at a minimum, that's destruction of property and
given that he manhandled the perps, i suspect he did the same to the
bystander.

No. Snapping the card in two would be destruction of property. And I
suspect that if the images were of use to the police then they could
quite legitimately have been confiscated as evidence.

The UK is threatening to make photographing policemen illegal, but so
far they have not done so. Although the untrained el cheapo jobsworths
they put out as "community support officers" sometimes think such a law
exists. Abuses of section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act are likely to
increase:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm

(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.

Deleting just the offending ones and then taking a few dozen random
shots would probably irreversibly trash the media containing the images
he wanted to destroy. Delete all images is far too easily undone on
most cameras. People hit the wrong buttons too often.

that's wonderful, but he broke the law. hopefully the bystander has a
good lawyer and also knows how to run an undelete utility.

Deleting all the images in the camera is nowhere near adequate if there
was an actual security risk to undercover personnel. The cop should
have asked for the media to use in evidence and issued a receipt for it.
(at least that is what I would expect a UK police officer to do)

Regards,
Martin Brown

What the UK does is irrelevant. If we are talking about the First
Amendment, then we are talking about the United States. Last I looked,
people in the UK do not have a Bill of Rights.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"tony cooper" wrote:

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.

I'm not going to address the issue of whether the cop's actions
were legal or not. I have my own opinion, but my wife's the first
amendment scholar in the family; I'm not.

What I will say is that _if_ this is a true account, the cop's
on-side reformatting of the card was _stupid_, and a guilty perp
might well walk on that basis.

The cop in question destroyed evidence at the crime scene. The
perp's lawyer could (and should) claim that a) the lost photos
could have contained exculpatory evidence, b) that any and
all concerns of the police could have been addressed by holding
the SD card as evidence, and c) taking such preemptive action
is evidence of the officer's state of mind with regard to their
own potential wrongdoing.

--
Michael Benveniste -- (Clarification required)
Legalize Updoc.