A disturbing new trend in censorship

God almighty - what the hell happened to the US? It sure isn't the same place that it was when I was born. The Bill Of Rights has basically been rendered impotent. Soon you won't even be allowed to photograph anyone/thing, among other things...
 
I was trying to figure where to move this thread. It was not about Rangefinder Photography, and "TV/Media" seemed more appropriate.

It appears to be bringing on "just venting", not discussion.

So let's try it here for a while.
 
Well, the article is a little (little?) over the top. The police did not act as if someone pointed a gun at them. Anyone care to test this out by pointing a gun at the cops?

People have been getting their heads and gear smashed in by the cops for as long as I can remember, and that is a long while (it's the short term memory that is a goner). The best thing to do is use a telephoto lens if photographing cops making busts is your heart's desire, and yes I can see a certain concern by all parties involved because this would be considered evidence. This is not to paint the cops as nice guys. I go out of my way to avoid them. I don't like them now and never have. But I wouldn't want their jobs either, and there's always going to be the ones that are rotten. It's humanity we're talking about here, not more nor less.
 
emraphoto said:
they should be re-writing that "land of the free" bit.
Click to expand...

Well, that was originally intended to apply only to white male landowners. It has been modified to apply only to those with enough money/influence to game the system.

Ironic that those of use who protested the absurdly named 'Patriot Act' were told that surveillance is OK if one isn't doing anything "wrong".

Yet another symptom of a world descending further into the irrationality of Fear.

:(
 
I hadn't thought this post would elicit venting and politics, but perhaps I should have known better :). Yea, it could be taken for a political joy ride if left without direction. Not my intent.

I had hoped to just spark some discussion about using wiretapping laws to circumvent existing rights. This is more than the typical post about cops harassing photographers out of ignorance for the law, which gets discussed regularly. It appears to be a fundamental change in how existing laws are being applied in order to the do the same thing.

This seemed like something worth discussing, and I had hoped could be done without becoming a rant thread.

Moderators; I meant to post it to the general forum, free to move it for me if you could. And the title should have had a question mark at the end.
 
Still it is like this that the freedom of speech stands the strongest of the world in USA. Hadn't it been for American writers & critics there would not be much to read. Take Russia. 25 journalists are killed. Per year.

Americans: Reckon yourself to be blessed.
 
I probably shouldn't have used the phrase censorship, since thats not really the subject area I was focusing on. What I am focused on is that I find it somewhat disturbing a law used for wiretapping is being used to subdue photography shot out in the open, on public streets, and what is generally considered fair game for non-commercial use. Suddenly, not only does it appear its being taken off the table in some circumstances, but further the photographer can be arrested for it and charged with a felony!

If it can be applied as is being done in the cases cited with police as the subjects, ie, the illegal recording of people without both parties explicit consent, wouldn't it also apply to any layperson on the street as well. There is no special clause limiting the law to police only, but is targeted at people in general. Thus, if you record me without my explicit permission, can't I then have you arrested for illegal wiretapping?

While this applies to video, and probably the audio portion more specifically, its a bad precedent to be set, and it appears many in the legal community are up in arms over it.

While I have my own opinions on how I feel about it, I find I learn best from listening to others with varying viewpoints, and why I started this thread. But I also quickly tune out when things go sour or down political black holes.
 
It seems to be a stretch of wire-tapping laws, where the recording is made surreptitiously, undetectable by the intended target. Using a Video camera, the recording is overt and easily spotted. It will be interesting to see if it holds up in court.
 
Well, the last security check point that I passed through- the guard really liked the Oly EP2 with the 5cm F1.4 Nikkor on it. I handed it to him to hold while going through the metal detector.

After reading the article- I'm left with the feeling that if you are asking for trouble, you are likely going to find it.
 
msk2193 said:
Does this mean a police officer whose cruiser video tapes a traffic violation is also violating the wiretapping laws?
Click to expand...

Based on what little I know about the law, and that a court order is required for wiretapping, I would have to guess and say yes.

I really don't think this will hold up in the end, but stranger things have happened. Definitely worth plugging into the RSS newsreader to follow and see what happens.
 
The one that is in the news in our area is of a Motor Cyclist with a hidden camera in his helmet, and racing along like a madman until pulled over by the police. He filmed the encounter, and that is causing some contention. Like I said, heard on the radio on the way home- not followed it up. Hidden cameras might make a case, especially with someone willfully violating the law trying to produce an encounter.
 
There are other cases cited (not sure if they are in the article or read elsewhere) in which there was not provocation and the cameras were not hidden. It's also not really known if the cyclist was just trying to capture his latest 15 minutes of fame for you tube, or was actually trying to produce some encounter with the police. The camera was in plain view on his helmet and hard not to notice and deduce he was in fact recording. Did the officer ask him to stop recording? Did the cyclist comply?

From what I've read he was not asked to stop nor was the officer concerned about the recording. He was actually arrested days or weeks later after the video was posted to youtube.

Yea, the cyclist was wrong on many counts, but was he really guilty of wiretapping?

I'll see if I can dig up the other cases and states where the law was used in a similar manner without the provocation factor for balance.
 
It will get to the USSC and it will not pass constitutional muster. Why? The liberal wing will point out the obvious about the need to defend against abuse. There is even a possibility that Scalia might even join on the grounds that you cannot legislate video devices as they didn't exist in 1776. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom