p.3 #2 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
Thanks for posting this, it's the perfect example of hypocrisy in America. Surveillance cameras are not questioned yet photographers are.
Funny how much corruption or government/state brutality is captured by photographers. Beyond simple art, photography is a linchpin of Democracy when it goes hand in hand with journalism.
The naked toddler is such a red herring, It's easy to stoke parental fear and manipulate that fear. It's so easy and so misleading to think that some stranger is preying on your child with photography when the majority of sexual abuse in America is committed by friends or family. People should be less concerned with strangers taking photos of their kids and more about the growing obesity epidemic in children. But reality is far less sensational and so mundane.
p.3 #3 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
The naked toddler thing is not a red herring. It strikes at the core of the matter, namely, to what extent an individual may go in pursuit of what he considers a "right" when the larger society considers it a public nuisance or an infringement on the rights of others to enjoy public space without being singled out, stalked or harrassed by a photographer.
When I asked a local policeman (in British Columbia) about whether taking uninvited pictures of kids on the beach would be an offence, he said he wasn't sure, but that as a father he would smash the man's camera.
Individual rights are not absolute. They need to be negotiated with the larger society. And what does it say about someone who persists in an activity when he knows that it offends or annoys others? What ever happened to the concept of empathy in this discussion? Are we not a society? Or are we just a collection of individuals doing our own thing?
p.3 #4 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
In my opinion, I STRONGLY disagree with you. Frankly I think that's crazy and creepy that anyone would think that someone taking pictures of kids automatically deserves to have their camera smashed. Suddenly anyone taking pictures of kids is a pedophile? Madness. That's the same party line used to disenfranchise Muslims, "Anyone Muslim is a potential terrorist". Using irrational fear to justify possible violence is madness. On FM I've seen dozens of posts over the years of photographers posting candid photos they've taken of unsuspecting women they thought were attractive. Should that be protected? Or should they have their cameras smashed as well? If you don't want pictures taken of your kids at a public beach, don't bring them to a public beach. A public beach means that you will have to interact with all different kinds of people and they have rights as well as you. If a woman wants to breastfeed on that beach, she has the right to in AMERICA, whereas she could be stoned in Saudi Arabia. There are things that may discomfort you, disgust you, etc. but our laws and freedoms are not so capricious to be decided by an overly temperamental parent.
Karlchen wrote:
The naked toddler thing is not a red herring. It strikes at the core of the matter, namely, to what extent an individual may go in pursuit of what he considers a "right" when the larger society considers it a public nuisance or an infringement on the rights of others to enjoy public space without being singled out, stalked or harrassed by a photographer.
When I asked a local policeman (in British Columbia) about whether taking uninvited pictures of kids on the beach would be an offence, he said he wasn't sure, but that as a father he would smash the man's camera.
Individual rights are not absolute. They need to be negotiated with the larger society. And what does it say about someone who persists in an activity when he knows that it offends or annoys others? What ever happened to the concept of empathy in this discussion? Are we not a society? Or are we just a collection of individuals doing our own thing?
p.3 #5 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
To pookipichu:
I don't see how you can disagree with me, since I have not given my opinion, only raised uncomfortable questions. And it was a policeman, not I, who said he would smash the camera. Moreover, the photography was under certain circumstances and not as you more broadly characterized it.
I am not talking about general street photography, or snapping shots of pretty girls at the beach, or cases that are newsworthy (e.g., the famous example of a young, naked girl running terrified down the road after having been napalmed by American forces in Vietnam, or naked kids playing in a filty, polluted waterway at a ship wrecking site in India).
Photography aside, how would you feel if someone persisted in doing something that annoyed you even though that person had what he believed was a legal "right" to do it?
So, the larger question remains unanswered, namely, to what extent does a person have a "right" to annoy, to infringe on the rights of others, or to flout social norms, even with a camera? In the USA I doubt very much if many parents would feel comfortable upon discovering that a strange photographer was secretly targeting their children. An extreme example? Yes, but not unrealistic. That's why I chose it, to see how far someone is willing to carry out the idea of "rights" without regard to others or to social context. Most of us, everywhere, place kids in a special protected category.
As for the woman breast feeding at the beach, she might not want to be photographed because she would likely feel that she was entitled to some modicum of personal privacy, even in a public place. So, what about empathy and caring for the feelings of others? Should that not matter?
p.3 #6 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
Micky Bill wrote:
All good points and afaik are true, but ignoring the red herring naked toddler and pedophile scenario where does the initial suspicion of a photographer come from?
A 2nd lawyer's view: There doesn't need to be any initial suspicion by the police to question you. Police are people too and can ask questions just as anyone on the street can but that does not mean you have to respond. However, not responding can look suspicious and may cause you to be detained so you're in a bit of catch-22.
If a cop asks you a question, just answer it in a polite manner. They may just be curious what you're doing (i.e., not presuming you're up to criminal activity). Now if a cop starts grilling me, I'm going to ask him/her: 1) Have I committed a crime?; and 2) Am I free to go?. Then I'll make my way past the police station to file a complaint.
Obligatory Disclaimer: None of this is to be construed as legal advise.
p.3 #7 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
It looks like somebody has almost successfully steered the conversation away from it's true intent.
This thread really wasn't about the ethics of street shooting vs privacy in public.
This was about the fear, paranoia and control of govt officials that try and deny constitutional rights of photographers under the guys of 911. I hardly think a Water Plant or a Bridge, cares about whether it's privacy is violated.
p.3 #11 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
This is clearly an abuse of power.
Yes an officer has the right to detain someone for questioning if he has reasonable doubt that the person has committed a crime. The thing is that the simple fact of taking pictures is NOWHERE NEAR a reasonable cause to think that that person is committing a crime.
p.3 #12 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
lukeb wrote:
Most malls prohibit photography, although no signs are posted. This according to the Rent-A-Cops.
In the case of most malls, they are private property and not held to the same legal standard as public areas. Note that malls are private property whether or not they are open to the public at no charge.
p.3 #13 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
lukeb wrote:
And by the way, an aside, Mall of America has no problems with photos. The largest mall in the US. I wonder how many of the rent a cops make the 'no photo's' up just to show they are in charge? Especially when there are no signs posted that photography is not permitted. I there would have been such a posting, I would not have set up. That begs the question = why no signs?? They only cost a few bucks.
What kind of camera were you using at MoA? All the local photographers I've every talked to that mentioned shooting there also said they had to get the Mall's permission to shoot. I even saw a photog accompanied by a mall staffer while he was taking photos.
p.3 #14 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
I never get harassed in Italy when shooting photos of anything. Here in the USA I'm often contacted by security. Ironically, when I use my Leica M8 I'm seldom approached. Take out a DLSR with a telephoto and bam! Whip out a tripod and here comes a spokesperson.
...'Change we can believe in'
p.3 #16 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
Reading these stories just reaffirms my belief the US has become a police state. The US government now claims the right to detain indefinitely and assassinate US citizens without due process, how deplorable.
Cameras and video are often times the last fragile check on a government that is increasingly asserting powers way beyond what the constitution allows. Why? All in the name of battling terrorism? What a sad joke, and yet so many americans are all too willing to hand over the rights so many people before us fought to create.
I live in Asia. Many of my friends here are very confused how the "land of the free" allows police to pepper spray peaceful protesters in the face and beat them with batons, something which the majority of americans seem to think is just alright.
p.3 #17 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
Having worked in regions without or very limited "law" enforcement rule number one is if you meet a man with a gun is to smile.
Unfortuntely, within our societies we are falling back on hollywood and video games for the masses rather than real education, and you are going to get more and more scenes like this and that of the Campus guard spraying the students he was employed to protect with pepper spray.
The politics of fear is too easy when the populous is not educated fully and dissemination of news is reduced to 3 or 5 second grabs designed for television news
"we will be back with more outrage after the break"
but the real outrage you dont hear about is something like the anti terrorism law that is enacted here in AU where if you are arrested under the same, your lawyer and family are prohibited (if you are lucky enough to contact anyone) from telling anyone you have been arrested and therefore you can legally disappear. The authorities deny it so draconian but as it is written it is. How a law like this, with all its privacy provisions can be fully tested by the courts, no one knows
p.3 #18 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
Karlchen wrote:
When border police arrested Ahmed Resam as he entered the United States with a trunk full of explosives, it is not clear as he drove off the ferry that he was committing or about to a crime. He was doing nothing suspicious. But when questioned it became evident that he had *intended* to blow up L.A. airport (a thought crime?).
Karl
And the judge that sentenced him was so far appalled by our reaction to the events of 9/11 that he went the oposite way. From the Wikipedia page on the story:
On July 27, 2005, United States District Court Judge John Coughenour sentenced Ressam to 22 years in prison, plus 5 years of supervision after his release; credited for good conduct, he could have been released after 14 years.[33] According to the Seattle Times, the judge used the occasion of Ressam's sentencing "to unleash a broadside against secret tribunals and other war on terrorism tactics that abandon 'the ideals that set our nation apart.'"[33] The judge added: "The tragedy of September 11 shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete ... If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.
p.3 #19 · ACLU Suing Police for Harassing Photographers
I agree, but all the photographer had to say was yes I agree with you selling to Alqeida is illegal, but all I am doing is taking pictures for personal use and that is not illegal. It was just a bunch he said, she said. That conversation could have been over in 2 minutes if the dialect had been better. I think the photographer just wanted to prove his point of knowing the rules and officer should be more informed of the Metro rules on photo taking.
