USA: Photographers guilty until proven innocent

[sreed2006]

Lamar Smith of Texas has introduced into the United States House of Representatives the following bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1981:

It is not a long bill, nor particularly hard to read. I hope that I am reading the text correctly, and I am not trying to overstate what it says.

At page 11 of the PDF, I read the bill to say that if I (as a U.S. citizen) publish a picture of a person without that person's consent, then I am guilty until proven innocent of a crime and subject to up to 20 years in prison. There are some exceptions that make publishing a person's picture not a crime, but being a street photographer or taking pictures for artistic reasons are not excluded.

If this bill passes, I think that pretty well finishes off photographing in public in the USA and then posting the picture to the internet.

When using film, a question I ask myself is, "Is this picture worth $0.50?" If this bill passes, the question becomes, "Is this picture worth 20 years?"

If I am mistaken about what the bill says, please do let me know.

 

[Keith]

IMO there's no way a bill like that will be passed in 'the land of the free.'

I hope I'm not wrong here!

 

[mfunnell]

My quick reading (note: I'm no lawyer) suggests that it restricts publication of photos of people protected by a witness protection order.

I don't think it's any kind of general provision.

...Mike

 

[sreed2006]

The bill is being pushed as a way to stop child pornography on the internet, which everyone should be for. But it goes way beyond that and makes photographing strangers a crime, no matter their age (if I have read it correctly).

As for the person having a protective order, how in the world would I know that the fellow across the street that I don't know and have never seen before has a protective order? Further, since I have committed the crime and am guilty until I can prove otherwise, how would I prove I didn't know that?

Keith, I sincerely hope you are correct.

 

[mfunnell]

The bill is being pushed as a way to stop child pornography on the internet, which everyone should be for. But it goes way beyond that and makes photographing strangers a crime, no matter their age (if I have read it correctly).

As for the person having a protective order, how in the world would I know that the fellow across the street that I don't know and have never seen before has a protective order? Further, since I have committed the crime and am guilty until I can prove otherwise, how would I prove I didn't know that?

Keith, I sincerely hope you are correct.

I think you're becoming overwraught. The passage you're referring to appears to be:

3 ‘‘(2) For purposes of subparagraphs (B)(ii) and
4 (D)(ii) of paragraph (1), a court shall presume, subject to
5 rebuttal by the person, that the distribution or publication
6 using the Internet of a photograph of, or restricted personal
7 information regarding, a specific person serves no legiti
8 mate purpose, unless that use is authorized by that specific
9 person, is for news reporting purposes, is designed to locate
10 that specific person (who has been reported to law enforce
11 ment as a missing person), or is part of a government-au
12 thorized effort to locate a fugitive or person of interest in
13 a criminal, antiterrorism, or national security investiga
14 tion.’’.
{my emphasis}

That refers back to:

1 ‘‘(B) the term ‘harassment’ means a serious act
2 or course of conduct directed at a specific person
3 that—
4 ‘‘(i) causes substantial emotional distress in
5 such person; and
6 ‘‘(ii) serves no legitimate purpose;

...and...

‘‘(D) the term ‘intimidation’ means a serious act
11 or course of conduct directed at a specific person
12 that—
13 ‘‘(i) causes fear or apprehension in such
14 person; and
15 ‘‘(ii) serves no legitimate purpose;

As I said earlier, this does not appear to be a general prohibition. Only a lawyer would know for sure, but my guess is you'd be fine if you couldn't be shown to be intentionally harassing or intimidating a protected witness.

...Mike

 

[mdarnton]

Give the government a piece of rope, and they will find a way to hang you with it. If you want perspective, look at what's happened with civil asset forfeiture: http://perspicuity.net/forfeiture/forfeit.html

Be very afraid.

 

[Jack Conrad]

Give the government a piece of rope, and they will find a way to hang you with it. If you want perspective, look at what's happened with civil asset forfeiture: http://perspicuity.net/forfeiture/forfeit.html

Be very afraid.

Exactly.

Assumption of freedom in the land of the free is unfortunately not
advisable.

 

[Teuthida]

Not constitutional. Never hold up on appeal.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Exactly.

Assumption of freedom in the land of the free is unfortunately not
advisable.

I have to agree. In this country, at this time, we are quite willing to give up our freedoms in the name of security ( and remember what Ben Franklin said about that. Also, H.L. Mencken, who made a comment about how Americans are forever talking about their rights, yet yielding them up at first demand, or something to that effect).

And for some reason, photographers are always convenient targets.

 

[dreilly]

'the land of the free.'

Where's that again?

 

[mdarnton]

Not constitutional. Never hold up on appeal.

Asset forfeiture seems unconstitutional to reasonable people, but it's held up fine. It's government united against people now, not separate branches of government against each other.

 

[Vics]

Not constitutional. Never hold up on appeal.

This guy is the chairman of the House Judiciary committee!

 

[mh2000]

Yeah, but you are not the one that wants to bankrupt themselves and going through the years of legal battles and stress to strike it down in appeals...

Well, I know I don't anyway!

🙂

Not constitutional. Never hold up on appeal.