Proposed Texas Law to Limit Photographing of Police

Sounds like telephoto lenses at public protest might come back into fashion. People always adapt.

~Joe
 
This is "LESS GOVERNMENT" and "MORE FREEDOM"

laughing-smiley-face-facebook-secret-smileys-codes.jpg

laughing-emoticon-vector1.jpg

mostused_whatsapp_emoticons_hashslush5.jpg
 
There have been and no doubt will continue to be, confused police who fear for different things, and believe that they are protected from photography. It has long been established that what you see in public, you can photograph. It does not relate to national defense issues, or inside houses. Other than that, most things are subject to photography.

Unfortunately, from time to time, police departments, and their municipal governments need to be reminded what the law they are trying to enforce, really says.
 
oftheherd said:
Unfortunately, from time to time, police departments, and their municipal governments need to be reminded what the law they are trying to enforce, really says.
Click to expand...

Not much good if they change the law to say something else? The issue for me is that this keeps government actions secret on a basic level, people are disallowed by law from even documenting what it does. Presumably so that what it does can't be proven. How long til death squads and mass graves?

:cool:
 
... don't you have that constitution thing to stop this type of abuse? ... we keep voting folk shouting 'freedom' into power, only to find it's their freedom not ours they are talking about ...
 
Anyone in congress can propose any law. That doesn't mean it will pass. It has to be debated, and enough congress (our representatives) have to agree with it. If they pass something their constituents don't really want (like the gun control measures in Colorado), they all get voted out of office the next term. The voters are what protect us, besides the Constitution.

Basically, it will never pass, and if it did, it would probably be found unconstitutional, and become null and void anyway. A congressman can propose everyone wear black tophats on Tuesdays, but it won't become law.
 
Ranchu said:
Not much good if they change the law to say something else? The issue for me is that this keeps government actions secret on a basic level, people are disallowed by law from even documenting what it does. Presumably so that what it does can't be proven. How long til death squads and mass graves?

:cool:
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was referring to the basis of our laws, which is the constitution. I should have been more specific. If a law is in violation of the constitution, and someone challenges it, it may take a while, but it will be overturned.
 
CMur12 said:
Wow, that sounds like what I once experienced in countries under dictatorship.

- Murray
Click to expand...

It was like that for a year or so in Chicago too.

Federal courts said no, No, NO. SCOTUS refused to hear it and let stand the appeal court ruling. You would think folks would do a simple Google search before presenting silly laws.

B2 (;->
 
filmtwit said:
Hard to get audio recordings from 100+ feet away though.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Unless a parabolic or so-called "shotgun mic" were used. Then you'd require a 2-person crew, one with long-lensed camera, the other handling the audio. Let's call it "citizen journalism," to differentiate from "embedded" journalism. Or, as someone I know calls it, "in-bed-with journalism".

~Joe
 
tunalegs said:
Well this is Texas, the same state SOPA and a billion other asinine proposed laws come from.
Click to expand...
Texas is a great state - love it. Unconstitutional laws are passed everyday all over the country - not uncommon at all, and hardly a Texas issue. Any good controlling municipality worth it's salt has dozens of them. Some annoyance like the Constitution never gets in the way of a grandstanding politicians anywhere! - that includes the Commander in Chief on down.

Of course the courts are another matter and that is where the Constitution gets enforced, if it gets enforced. These laws can cause a lot of pain and expense before they are overturned however. Some years ago I received a $50 ticket in Los Angeles Country for the heinous crime of having a FOR SALE sign on my truck that was parked on the street. That law was overturned a couple of years after that on constitutional grounds (free speech), but I never got my $50 back! I was told by lawyers that if I had "kept the old paperwork" I could have recover my unconstitutionally collected my fine - yeah right!

I think a deeper question might be what is wrong in the psyche of the American people to tolerate such madness with regularity - even champion it - likely ignorance and our somewhat challenged educational system.
 
David Murphy said:
.........I think a deeper question might be what is wrong in the psyche of the American people to tolerate such madness with regularity - even champion it - likely ignorance and our somewhat challenged educational system.
Click to expand...

Good question.

We seem to have so many litmus tests that we measure in a binary fashion, right or wrong. Combine that with the 24 hr news for profit cycle that has expanded into the internet and you have a masterful system that scares people who might want to try being a representative for a few years away. I've been alive too long to be perfect and I suspect most folks are.

Keep doing the same thing and hoping for a different outcome is not a good sign, but when you look at where we are today it makes one wonder.

B2 (;->
 
Most states have a law that requires any on-lookers of a crime scene or where officers are engaged in a confrontation,
to stay far enough away as not to physically interfere with the confrontation...This law was probably passed because of issues with on-lookers and photographers getting too close,
and may of put them and or the officers at risk. The law itself bans photography inside a 25' area... well the 25' area is a pretty good distance for on-lookers to be safe, and not interfere...
and that part will stay if challenged in court I would think.
The photography ban, though, may not stand if challenged.

And who decides that 25' limit? What if an officer keeps adjusting him/her self to make a wider limit?
That was one of the argument presented during the debate stage.
If an officer got in your face, and you where already at or more than the 25' limit. Would the circle now need another 25'?
Because now the officer is now a few feet away.
I can pace off 25' within a foot or less.. what if you said "I am 25' or more away from the 'action', isn't that the law requires?"
I have a deliberately paced step I use to pace off meters for zone focusing lenses w/o a distance scale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom