Photograph a cop, go to jail

[dfoo]

McCarthy got quite a bum rap. It turns out there really were a fair number of spies in government and military service -- he simply didn't want them on the payroll!

Indeed, his tireless efforts to root out the red menace are to be congratulated. Indeed, the communists in the film industry were harming America beyond measure! boggle.

 

[bmattock]

Well then the problem is with the legislators for micro-managing and making laws for every practical probability, rather than having common sense and allowing well-trained and intelligent police to use their judgement.

Police are well-trained and have good judgment (in general), IMHO. However, they cannot make up laws, nor should be ever allow them to.

If photography of police officers is illegal, then it is illegal. If it is legal, then it is legal. There is no room for an officer to 'make law' by saying, "Today, I decided that it is illegal to take my photo. Tomorrow, I may feel differently."

Imagine people arrested for breaking a law made up on the spot that didn't exist yesterday, and may not again tomorrow, on the basis that the police officer in question 'used his judgment'.

The 9-11 terrorists had access to the builder's plans for the WTC. Now that many of those documents have been secured from the general public, I would think the "power of photography" would be very useful, say in determining where charges might be placed on a bridge or to determine the volume of a subway tunnel. The engineer planning the attack need not be doing the scouting themselves and could indeed be half a world away....

Then shut down the interwebs - it is full of photos of bridges, tunnels, and tall buildings. Good Lord, the terrorists could simply watch "The History Channel" for detailed information on how famous bridges, tunnels, and tall buildings are designed, far more than could be obtained by a photo taken from street-level. And again, I must ask - what would a terrorist find useful about a photo of a policeman? They know what police officers look like.

Speaking only for myself, I refuse to live in fear and cower in the dark, seeking protection from thugs and hooligans, and urging that my liberties be taken away to protect me from these vague threats.

Even assuming that taking away personal liberties would be the correct way to protect us from terrorists - exactly when would these rights be restored? Even in the darkest days of the US Civil War, we knew that Habeus Corpus would be restored when the war was over. And it was. When exactly is the 'war on terror' over? There will ALWAYS be terrorists somewhere. Does that mean our liberties are redacted forever on that basis? Sorry, I won't go along with that. Arrest me now, I'm going to keep taking photos of whatever I want to take photos of.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Taking photos of police officers could be considered a crime

The relationship between photographers and police could worsen
next month when new laws are introduced that allow for the arrest
and imprisonment of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely
to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of
terrorism'.

Wait, that surely must be some law in some Third World HH, I'm sure, for "the West" is all about spreading Freedom™ 😱

 

[Frank Petronio]

oh well, at least in the USA we're still free....

oh well, at least in the USA we're still free....

From the Royal Obama Day

Well you Brits were doing all this anti-terror stuff when the IRA was bombing, locking up whatever Micks you felt like, so you ought to be used to it by now....

 

[Paul T.]

Well you Brits were doing all this anti-terror stuff when the IRA was bombing, locking up whatever Micks you felt like....

So our idiots are as stupid as your idiots.

But we've all had a quarter century to learn that this is the best recruitment ad that terrorists could wish for.

 

[Sparrow]

So our idiots are as stupid as your idiots.

But we've all had a quarter century to learn that this is the best recruitment ad that terrorists could wish for.

Yep we should have left the Irish alone, and gone for the sponsors

 

[FallisPhoto]

Article here.

Technically, it has been illegal to photograph cops here in America since way back in the early 50s or 60s. It isn't enforced though, at least not to my knowlege.

 

[bmattock]

Technically, it has been illegal to photograph cops here in America since way back in the early 50s or 60s. It isn't enforced though, at least not to my knowlege.

Do you have a cite for that? I am unaware of any such law.

EDIT: More information...

For such a law to exist, it would have to be federal ("...in America" as stated above). I can find no evidence for such a law existing. If such a law exists at the municipal, county, or state levels, I'd like to see it, but it would not be the law 'in America' but only in that jurisdiction even if it did exist.

I did find this:

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0847P.pdf

Long and short - a citizen videotaped the police because he thought they were operating in an unsafe manner. He was arrested and convicted of harassment of the police. Overturned. Judge said "The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny. Indeed, "the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987). Although Robinson need not assert any particular reason for videotaping the troopers, he was doing so in order to make a visual record of what he believed was the unsafe manner in which they were performing their duties."

As far as I know, there is no law prohibiting taking photographs of police in the USA, enforced or unenforced. I even found another court case where the court determined that citizens can take photographs of UNDERCOVER police officers. Although I don't encourage that, it's legal, apparently.

I do not see any such law, but I await more information.

 

[Al Patterson]

i thought this was about the uk?
i would hardly call it "picking on" (my comment). i agree that these threads do have a tendency to get a little testy but it really does befuddle me. a nation (the uk) steeped in the tradition of protecting "freedom" worldwide taking such dramatic steps against personal liberty.

As an example of how political threads go wrong, I read your original message as a slap at the USA, which also fits the premise of your statement. And I'm sure there are a few other countries that fit the bill as well.

Not a good time to be a civil libertarian these days...

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Do you have a cite for that? I am unaware of any such law.

Bill, Bill, Bill: it's written on the Intertubes, therefore, it has to be true.

 

[bmattock]

Bill, Bill, Bill: it's written on the Intertubes, therefore, it has to be true.

I know, I know.

Seriously, though. A couple RFF'ers consistently post statements such as this - and refuse to post any sort of proof whatsoever. I don't care personally, I know they're incorrect, but it bothers me that newbs will read that and base conclusions on it.

I recall the one guy who kept posting "It is illegal to take a photograph of a person without their consent in the US" over and over again - refused to provide any kind of cite or proof of that, just kept saying it. Irritating only because some people will take that as truthful.

 

[crawdiddy]

McCarthy got quite a bum rap. It turns out there really were a fair number of spies in government and military service -- he simply didn't want them on the payroll!

There is NO JUSTIFICATION for punishing citizens for exercising freedom of speech or association. Joe McCarthy got what he deserved-- being discredited as a demagogue who used fear as a tool to further his career. Much like Rudy Giuliani.

 

[emraphoto]

As an example of how political threads go wrong, I read your original message as a slap at the USA, which also fits the premise of your statement. And I'm sure there are a few other countries that fit the bill as well.

Not a good time to be a civil libertarian these days...

whilst i was really focused on the UK on this particular occasion i cannot deny that i find the US model quite compelling as well.
i recently spent about 1.5 years studying the american model of the republic and truth be told i find the current state of affairs muddled and contradictory at best.
"capitalism" as an economic theory is rooted in the recognition of individual rights. the only role of governance in a capitalist society is the protection of the individuals rights. In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any capitalist society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial.
obviously there are far more intricacies to the modern model of capitalism. i do find it remarkable that countries, whose myth is so deeply rooted in the core belief of individual rights to freedom, are prepared to act so gregariously to suspend said rights. that goes for the UK as well. it is down right concerning when said nations are prepared to export, with violence, this contradictory brand of "democratic capitalism".

 

[bmattock]

There is NO JUSTIFICATION for punishing citizens for exercising freedom of speech or association. Joe McCarthy got what he deserved-- being discredited as a demagogue who used fear as a tool to further his career. Much like Rudy Giuliani.

He died of hepatitis at a young age - speculated to be due to acute alcoholism.

 

[emraphoto]

please remember that i believe that healthy conversation is the path to knowledge. i do not intend to judge nor condemn. only to better understand.

 

[dfoo]

He died of hepatitis at a young age - speculated to be due to acute alcoholism.

He had to numb his guilty conscience somehow....

 

[Sparrow]

I know, I know.

Seriously, though. A couple RFF'ers consistently post statements such as this - and refuse to post any sort of proof whatsoever. I don't care personally, I know they're incorrect, but it bothers me that newbs will read that and base conclusions on it.

I recall the one guy who kept posting "It is illegal to take a photograph of a person without their consent in the US" over and over again - refused to provide any kind of cite or proof of that, just kept saying it. Irritating only because some people will take that as truthful.

"Repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth"

uncle Joe; how true that is, even today

 

[BillBingham2]

Didn't you know!?!

Didn't you know!?!

.....I was pulled over the Sunday after Thanksgiving while visting my parents in a small town in Minnesota, US. Apparently the day before someone at a bank called 911 on me for "possibly taking a picture of the bank." ........Have the terrorist won? Over my dead body.

The old lady that called was telling the police about a Tourist, seems her accent was heavily Swedish and the dispatcher was from Jersey!

It's sad to hear about the mayor and folks treating you like it was your fault. Seems the terrorist have won over several of us folks here. No taking pictures inside a buildings (by mandate of the owners), no taking pictures of the outside. These folks need a clue, if anyone wanted to case the joint they would hide their camera, aaarrrrgggghhh.

Any body like a slightly used Governor? He might help fix some of these problems with rights and all for a small contribution? Pay to Shoot might be in your future.......

B2 (;->

 

[bmattock]

Seems the terrorist have won over several of us folks here.

It's not just here on RFF - it's everywhere. Common, everyday, decent people, who have been hoodwinked by our respective governments into believing that a) only the government can protect you and b) if you want protection, you have to be ready to give up some of your rights.

Whilst I admit that 'liberty' is an abstract concept to a person who is starving and only wants food, it should not be an abstract concept to a person who wants safety. We would do well to ask ourselves if we are merely protecting our own skins, or if what we are protecting is something more precious - our mutual way of life, one that predicates individual liberty and freedom as a base condition from which everything else comes.

If what we want is merely safety, I have a solution, right now. It is guaranteed to work. Simply put - do what the terrorists and radical Islamists say. Convert to their version of Islam. Surrender our governments and lay down our arms. We will not be harmed, and the 'war' will be over. They will have 'won', but so what? We'll be safe. We'll be able to go on with our lives, more or less the same as before.

If, however, we seek to protect our liberties as well as our lives, then I mildly suggest that voluntarily giving up our liberties in order to seek safety from terrorists by our governments is counter-productive, and should be patently obvious to all of us.

Every time I hear a US citizen calmly speak of the loss of personal liberty with the words, "If it saves one life, it is worth it," I die a little bit inside.

 

[bmattock]

Ironic, that the governments that are "protecting us" - are the ones that got us into this mess in the first place.

Opinion: I suspect that war was coming one way or another.

The worldwide rise in militant Islamism pretty much guaranteed it. We experienced a number of terrorist attacks prior to the US attack on Iraq, and none since - for good or bad (I won't argue the 'rightness' of attacking Iraq, and probably agree with you anyway). I merely cite history, no argument or insult intended.

We could argue tit-for-tat forever, since Islamic terrorism against civilians goes back to Al-Fatah as a response to the establishment of Israel, which was facilitated by the West. I'm not an expert, it's a shoulder-shrugger for me. Whatever happened, we're in it now.

I suggest the answer to the question of protecting our freedom is not giving up our freedom, that's all.