Police & Censorship in U.S.

[Scrambler]

And Hitler took their guns away. Great Britain and Australia didn't follow that move until recently.

And it's amazing how much speech is illegal....everywhere but in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

Can't say for the UK but here in Oz there are a decent number of guns. What there are not is semi-automatics. The other thing we no longer have, but did have 20 years ago, are mass shootings. No school shootings etc.

If you read up on the post WWII design of military light weapons you might understand why a civilian population can do without them.

The local paper recently headlined the number of guns registered in our Municipality of just over 100,000 people: 17,000. Perhaps not USA levels but not gone.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I seriously doubt that is true. Police, Sheriffs, and Security Guards my believe that and tell you it is fact, but don't believe or perpetuate it until you can point to the specific Federal statute.

I can only speak for Chicago, but in this city I heard it from the Mayor, the Police, and the CTA. No taking of pictures on/in any CTA platform/station (our subway and elevated train line), or on/in any CTA train.

I heard it was the same with the New York City subway, but I have not lived there since 9/11.

Those rules/laws have been relaxed in the last number of years, but were strictly enforced post 9/11.

Best,
-Tim

 

[lukitas]

(snip)

Back to the OP. Of course you can photograph police. So what? Is the goal to intimidate them, suggesting they're always about to do something wrong? They're doing a job. In MO, a thug was walking down the middle of the street. The cop told him to get on the sidewalk. The thug, hyped up from just robbing a store, decided the cop was about to arrest him. He decided he had nothing to lose, and was "sick of these aggressive cops in my face" (sound familiar to your attitude, Police photo journalists?), and grabbed for the cops gun. The cop, reacting to his training, and about to become another Cop Shot By His Own Gun, defended himself. The thug, shot and realizing he lost his bid to grab the gun, runs away, hand in the air "don't shoot again!" Then collapses, dead.

The media and community turns the above story into "Unarmed (Implying innocent and defenseless - but he just assaulted 2 people robbing the store - so was violent), Youth (Implying a poor boy playing with his puppy - why is anyone under 20 a youth?) Killed by Cop (Implying cops are roaming the streets, shooting up birthday parties and men walking home from their jobs). The "witnesses" say he was shot standing there with his hands up." Bull. The community, always ready to blame their problems on others, finds another opportunity to loot and burn.

Why are you worried about taking pictures of cops? Take pictures of the thugs, and shame them into changing their lives.

A gripping story. There are also, unfortunately, many stories in which the cop is the thug.

I work with cops, most of them are good people. That doesn't mean they cannot do wrong, or that the job doesn't push one a little towards abuse of power.

On my trains, police officers can travel for free, if they are in uniform, and in second class. Usually, I find them in first class, at best partly in uniform, but they make a habit of giving me a reassuring : 'If you need me, ...'.
Now, if their personal comfort weighs more than the law - which they are supposed to know, after all, who could believe an officer of the law that doesn't know the law - how will they act in moments of real stress : will their comfort weigh more than that of a victim? Will it weigh more than justice meted out to a criminal?

Who guards the guardians?

 

[willie_901]

After 9/11, across the United States, taking photographs of and in train stations, subways, etc. became illegal. Probably had something to do with wanting to stop terrorists from surveying targets. It was strictly enforced for a number of years, but they are slacking off on it some now.

Best,
-Tim

Yes. Documenting infrastructure such as tunnels, track switches, power stations may be considered prohibited by Homeland Security provisions.

Photographing people, benches, and statues is not. This was confirmed to me a few weeks later via discussions with security police at other train stains just few miles away. I received the letter in 2006, well after 9/11.Also, the Transit Authority's web site clearly stated when photography was and wasn't permitted.

 

[willie_901]

I was told by an Amtrak conductor that photography was not permitted on the train some 5-6 years ago. I told him that I believed he was in error but would comply with his request. However I did need his full name and employee ID information to include in my letter to Amtrak requesting refund of my ticket price. I pointed out that my sole reason for riding the train was to photograph, not to go somewhere. My ticket showed I was traveling 1 1/2 hours in one direction then changing to a train returning to my original departure point.

I sat with the conductor while he spent 45 minutes leafing through regulations then on the phone with his supervisors. I told him that I had nothing else to do since I could not photograph. Finally, he admitted his error, apologized, and told me that I was free to photograph.

Well done Bob.

I was photographing from an Amtrak train (the Texas Eagle) on the lower level of a Pullman car. We were crawling along as the train approached the Fort Worth TX station. The conductor happened to be standing next to me. As we approached s stationary locomotive he really surprised me. He said, "I'll open the window for a second so you can get a clear picture of that locomotive". I knew it was against RR safety rules to open that window at any time (another conductor yelled at me a week earlier for opening a similar window when the train was stopped at a station during the southbound trip). I took a couple shots and thanked him. Then he closed the window. I also photographed engineers and conductors on other Amtrak cross-country trips.

 

[Bob Michaels]

The Cuban National Police will always tell you that you cannot photograph trains for security purposes. But once you are actually on the train, rules disappear. This is the Hershey train where they always let me ride up front with the engineer. Ten minutes after I made this photo, the engineer was letting me actually operate the train. They have let me operate the train enough times that I actually have gotten pretty good at stopping at remote stations right at the platform.

 

[willie_901]

...

Back to the OP. Of course you can photograph police. So what? Is the goal to intimidate them, suggesting they're always about to do something wrong? ...

Why are you worried about taking pictures of cops? Take pictures of the thugs, and shame them into changing their lives.

My goal is to document the world I live in as creatively as possible. The creative goal is too make what Winogrand described as an interesting (to him) photograph – a photograph that balances the tension between content and composition. Occasionally photographing a police officer is consistent with my goals. In that case I make a photograph. Otherwise I don't.

I'm not worried about taking pictures of cops. But please don't tell me how to express myself by suggesting subject matter. It is presumptuous and I consider it an insult.

 

[JoeV]

Yes, we have the First Amendment to the Constitution (1791) which allows free speech. We can't suppose photography is some kind of "free speech" though. The government decided no cameras were allowed at Los Alamos during the Manhattan project, for a good reason. They decided during the 911 attacks, when terrorists were placing bombs in parking garages (New York, Oklahoma), subways (London) and other current targets to ban them too. So what? You think your individual desire to take a photo of the nuclear power plant somehow overrides the attempt to protect the community? I'm not that arrogant.
...

Of course photography is a form of free speech. As is most any other kind of communication.

As for Los Alamos, the detailed secrets of the plutonium implosion device were stolen and shared with the Soviets not via photographs but mere hand-wrought sketches and writings. And so in that case, security measures prohibiting photography were mere security theater, they had no real affect on actually ensuring the project's security. The weak point, as is usual, was people, properly motivated to betray their (or their host) country.

I'm not that arrogant to presume taking any kinds of pictures in public could actually present a security risk, since virtually anything can be viewed in remarkable detail via Google Earth. And as for Terrorists scoping out their next target, you can do that just as easily - and probably more effectively - with a simple journal book and pen. Forget the Hollywood theatrics.

~Joe

 

[nikon_sam]

One must also know when they are on Private Property too...many of our open air malls are on PP and they can stop you from photographing or remove you from the mall via "Trespassing"...

As long as you don't interfere with their duties you're okay too...

 

[dovi]

He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch

He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch

The system that supports the authoritarian behavior is the problem. The Beat cop is the lowest man on the totem.
He's emulating what he sees. Like most behaviors it will continue as long as it is enabled from above.

your word vs his and his support system..

Videos just pull the covers off of the Standard operating procedures. Blaming officers is too easy.

Too much about what the press has endured. Any word about the protesters? Do they count?

 

[gdi]

Yes. Documenting infrastructure such as tunnels, track switches, power stations may be considered prohibited by Homeland Security provisions.

Photographing people, benches, and statues is not. This was confirmed to me a few weeks later via discussions with security police at other train stains just few miles away. I received the letter in 2006, well after 9/11.Also, the Transit Authority's web site clearly stated when photography was and wasn't permitted.

Where do guys get this stuff?

Does "considered prohibited" mean there is an actual law against it? Do you have a link to the HLS "provisions" you mentioned? Or were they in that letter you received?

I have run into various authority-types (pseudo or actual) who have told me the similar things - can't take a picture of a dam, or of a shopping center, or even that a new law says you can't photograph any human anywhere without obtaining written permission first. In all cases, I complied, after commenting that they were wrong.

As for US train stations - Amtrak should be a good example - I see no codified prohibition on photography from publicly accessible areas and here is a link that discusses it :

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/nyregion/28about.html?_r=0

There may be actual city/local ordinances that prohibit photography of infrastructure like Timmyjoe sates regarding Chicago, but until I see actual links to such laws, I'll consider them bunk.

Keep Calm
and
Don't Spread FUD​

 

[Ronald M]

Pretty easy to get caught when cameras are all over and who wants that.
The reporter I saw was sitting in his car trying to avoid the tear gas. Never charged, but he spent the night in jail anyway.

Being a coward, I would not go near demonstrations. One just gets swept up in the problem whether you are legal or not.

 

[Photog9000]

During my time working as a newspaper photog (from 1998 to 2008), I had only one run-in with a deputy sheriff. I was shooting a two-vehicle accident scene when a newly recruited deputy came up to me and told me to quit photographing the scene. I was wearing accredited press credentials and told him I was just doing my job. He seem to have a problem with my shooting from a "family" point of view. I did stop shooting but told him I was going to take this up with his superiors which seem to agitate him a bit. About that time, one of his superiors, a captain, saw there was a problem and came over. The captain had known me for several years, knew who I was and who I worked for, and also knew that, as a local community paper, that the editor would not use graphic images whether I got them or not. The deputy was brought up to speed on my rights as a journalist and his as a law enforcement official. Never did see that particular deputy again which is probably just as well.

 

[NY_Dan]

The Cuban National Police will always tell you that you cannot photograph trains for security purposes. But once you are actually on the train, rules disappear. This is the Hershey train where they always let me ride up front with the engineer. Ten minutes after I made this photo, the engineer was letting me actually operate the train. They have let me operate the train enough times that I actually have gotten pretty good at stopping at remote stations right at the platform.

Bob, you've got the mojo working -- would love to hang out 🙂

 

[Photog9000]

Yes it was looking that way for a while. Sue and I are only 5 or 6 miles from "ground zero" (Ferguson). Now that Governor Nixon has relieved the Ferguson police of their responsibilities, and put the the state Highway patrol in charge, things are looking calmer already. Never a problem with police & photography in our part of town (U. City, Clayton, St. Louis City).

But the calm did not last.

 

[goamules]

Of course photography is a form of free speech. As is most any other kind of communication.

As for Los Alamos, the detailed secrets of the plutonium implosion device were stolen and shared with the Soviets not via photographs but mere hand-wrought sketches and writings. And so in that case, security measures prohibiting photography were mere security theater, they had no real affect on actually ensuring the project's security. The weak point, as is usual, was people, properly motivated to betray their (or their host) country.

I'm not that arrogant to presume taking any kinds of pictures in public could actually present a security risk, since virtually anything can be viewed in remarkable detail via Google Earth. And as for Terrorists scoping out their next target, you can do that just as easily - and probably more effectively - with a simple journal book and pen. Forget the Hollywood theatrics.

~Joe

90% of security is going through the motions. I worked in classified environments (highly) for 20 years. In NM too. Having stupid rules in place doesn't mean they will prevent all security violations, but they will prevent some. I've seen some good security measures, I've seen some really dumb ones.

My point wasn't to argue their effectiveness. My point is the government, businesses, private people have the right to decide what rules they want to make. And sometimes a citizen just doesn't get to do what he wants. There are lots of stories where a photographer insists on shooting the nuke power plant, at night, from the bushes, then gets all upset when security arrives and asks him what he's doing. You have no more photographic rights in ALL situations, that you have the free speach right to yell FIRE! in a theater. You can argue, rationalize, debate it all you want. But you will sometimes be told to leave or face consequences.

If you were a cop, who would you stop and question?

A. A granny walking down the sidewalk with a bag of groceries.
B. A angry looking young man, walking down the middle of the street.

A. A photographer with his family taking pictures of the city flower garden during the day.
B. A photographer climbing police barricades, and shoving a long lens in your face as you prepare to prevent looting during an emergency.

etc...etc.

 

[willie_901]

One must also know when they are on Private Property too...many of our open air malls are on PP and they can stop you from photographing or remove you from the mall via "Trespassing"...

As long as you don't interfere with their duties you're okay too...

Absolutely.

However, unless you pose a physical threat, they can not touch you. Under no circumstances can they take your camera, film or insist you delete images.

When I'm told to stop on private property with free and open public access, I politely agree; put my camera in the bag and leave it there.

 

[raid]

It is all relative. The above comments may apply to the USA, and when I think back of how things were in Baghdad in the 1970's and 1980's, you could "vanish" from existence for far less than taking photos of police in action. Police cars would often be left (without anyone in them) at various places in Baghdad, with machine pistols in sight, laying around the cars. The fear tactic was emphasized by using only light blue Mercedes Benz 230 2.6 cars, and everyone knew that only police and "secret" agents used those cars in Iraq.

 

[willie_901]

But the calm did not last.

I live about 15 miles from Ferguson. Last night I was watching live-stream video from W. Florissant Ave on-line. About 1:00 AM there was looting of three stores. the media (including international teams) went to the stores and the looters threatened them with violence... so they wisely moved away. Within 20 minutes young (18-25) residents/protestors chased the looters away. Then they stood in front of the looted/semi-looted businesses and stopped further looting. These individuals were interviewed by other media outlets after the looters left. One reporter (heavy British accent) even phoned one of the residents mother for him so he could tell her he was safe and not to worry. There was a police line about two blocks north of this area. For about ten minutes a helicopter with a spot light flew overhead and left. Around 2:00 AM the crowd and cars were just about gone (the locals were still in front of the stores). I went to bed.

I only watched one semi-pro's video stream. So I certainly don't claim to have seen everything that happened during the short period of looting. But I can tell you the young people I saw protecting a liquor store acted bravely and responsibly.

 

[willie_901]

It is all relative. The above comments may apply to the USA, and when I think back of how things were in Baghdad in the 1970's and 1980's, you could "vanish" from existence for far less than taking photos of police in action. Police cars would often be left (without anyone in them) at various places in Baghdad, with machine pistols in sight, laying around the cars. The fear tactic was emphasized by using only light blue Mercedes Benz 230 2.6 cars, and everyone knew that only police and "secret" agents used those cars in Iraq.

Thanks for putting things in perspective.