The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Culture

Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

If the police are trying to maintain safety, confronting them to assert your rights serves no purpose. If you think you are entitled by constitutional right to film whenever and whatever you want, get real.

If your rights were being repressed as part of a real issue (corruption, protest, etc.), I'll be right there with you to assert them. But to invoke your rights over such frivolities does nothing but trivialize them and distracts from their real purpose.

I dislike the FUD over "drones" as much as anyone else here. But there are more constructive ways to address that issue than making the local paper for being unruly.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

ianwood said:
If the police are trying to maintain safety, confronting them to assert your rights serves no purpose. If you think you are entitled by constitutional right to film whenever and whatever you want, get real.

I don't think anybody suggested that. I stated to the police I would be away from the bridge, and away from the runners. I would be over a park located adjacent to the bridge the runners would be on.

ianwood said:
But to invoke your rights over such frivolities does nothing but trivialize them and distracts from their real purpose.

I think the opposite, by not expressing my rights I am making those rights frivolous, no matter how frivolous you may think doing so is. Which of course is your right ;)

Visioneer said:
I'm very reluctant to get into quoting the Constitution and Bill of Rights in any of these discussions

Same here, but in broad terms I think its safe to say the first amendment applies here.

Visioneer said:
Again, we don't want to make this thread about guns but as you raised the analogy it put a question in my mind; what if someone shows up at an event like this with a weapon in plain view. My uneducated impression is that there can be no law against it. Yet it's hard for me to imagine such person would go unchallenged.

This is touchy, but for recreational purposes there is no point in having a gun at an event. Other than "personal protection" It would seem to me the only other purpose of having a gun at an event would be to use it on people. A gun's presence itself is a threat, because it's only purpose is to shoot a piece of lead so fast it can kill. There was a legitimate purpose to having my phantom at the event and although the presence of my Phatom was "suspicious" enough to be thought of as a threat it's main purpose is to take pictures and video.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

derrickduff said:
Visioneer said:
I'm very reluctant to get into quoting the Constitution and Bill of Rights in any of these discussions
Same here, but in broad terms I think its safe to say the first amendment applies here.
It's my understanding that there's a bundle of case law that flows from the first amendment but if you just look at the wording itself there's nothing there about photography or UASs, so without the specific case law reference that applies in hand, it strikes me as something of a debatable claim. I'm not saying it's not applicable, just that using it without the detail doesn't end the discussion with whoever you might be debating the issue.

derrickduff said:
This is touchy, but ...
Yeah, I really didn't want to go into a discussion of why one would or wouldn't have a gun there, just wanted to know if having one there in the open could be successfully challenged. If it could not, then it just reinforces your point that other, more obviously dangerous devices are allowed, so how can you single out a UAS? Anyway, I did a bit of Googling and found out that SC does not permit "open carry" of long guns or handguns though they are a "shall issue" concealed permit state. Bottom line is this takes away the notion that handguns are treated differently. If one was in plain view, the carrier would be cited.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

ianwood said:
If the police are trying to maintain safety, confronting them to assert your rights serves no purpose. If you think you are entitled by constitutional right to film whenever and whatever you want, get real.

If your rights were being repressed as part of a real issue (corruption, protest, etc.), I'll be right there with you to assert them. But to invoke your rights over such frivolities does nothing but trivialize them and distracts from their real purpose.

I dislike the FUD over "drones" as much as anyone else here. But there are more constructive ways to address that issue than making the local paper for being unruly.
thats a slippery slope, if you are willing to give up your rights to film in public then the next step is giving up your rights to film a police officer in public, then the police have free reign to do whatever they want with no consequences, now you are living in KGB run russia
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

MILLER4PRESIDENT2020 said:
thats a slippery slope, if you are willing to give up your rights to film in public then the next step is giving up your rights to film a police officer in public, then the police have free reign to do whatever they want with no consequences, now you are living in KGB run russia

That's quite a big slope you got there.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

ianwood said:
MILLER4PRESIDENT2020 said:
thats a slippery slope, if you are willing to give up your rights to film in public then the next step is giving up your rights to film a police officer in public, then the police have free reign to do whatever they want with no consequences, now you are living in KGB run russia

That's quite a big slope you got there.

police states dont happen overnight, your rights are slowly taken away until one day people wake up and ask "what the hell happened?"
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

This reminds me of a quote made long ago. It all starts someplace...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

WOW! As I find is usually the case, some investigation regards the "law" will be an eye opening experience. :eek:

In the wake of all this discussion I did some searching and turned up the linked article. I will be shocked if anyone who's been posting herein reads it all and then suggests they knew all this (if you did, shame on you for not sharing :cry: ).

Caveat one - this is only one of many articles that turned up when I Googled "photography first amendment". I have not read them all (I read four). I picked this one because these folks are all about the first amendment.

Caveat two - this is about photography in general which I'm pretty sure only encompasses hand held cameras. Aerial photography via a remote controlled aircraft is pretty certain to open a whole new can of worms even though it should ultimately boil down to the same thing.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment

This is a long article, and it is somewhat dated (last updated April, 2012). I read it all. However, from the website's owner's stated purpose and position, I suspect if there had been any significant changes, they would be all over them.

It would be nice if they had a summary but I suspect their charge means sticking to the facts, all the facts ... and summarizing could introduce their opinions.

A few of my observations:

"No Supreme Court decisions directly address a photographer’s First Amendment rights." The importance of this statement to me is that all those comments you hear about a constitutional right to take photographs are sort of "transient" in that they're based on interpretations of the Supreme Court's related rulings, and the findings of many lower courts. The first amendment does not mention photography (it didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was adopted) so the amendment's applicability to photography comes only through the decisions of the courts, and the ultimate court hasn't directly ruled on it (though presumably they've let lower court decisions stand - sort of a ruling I guess, unless none were ever brought to them).

If you believe that personal use photography in public places is protected by the first amendment, you are likely mistaken (as was I). In 1995 the Supreme Court ruled “To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.” Several cases are presented where courts found that taking pictures for your own use do not qualify under these requirements. If you're ever challenged, you'd better have a believeable message (of public interest) portrayed in your photos and a public audience (wonder if Flickr would count). Oh, and a court will have to decide if youve met those requirements.

If you believe that government restrictions on the time, place, and manner of photography restrictions are unconstitutional, you may be wrong - the answer seems to be "it depends". And, you guessed it, it gets decided after the fact by a court. The examples referenced were crime and accident scenes. The only guidance I could see was if the general public is excluded, so are the photographers (professionals included).

If you believe that you have a right to photograph police activity ... you might be right, or you might be wrong. It really seems to depend on which Federal Circuit Court's jurisdiction you're in, because their rulings are across the board. In the 1st, 11th, and maybe 9th Circuit Courts, you're covered. In a the 9th, it's a solid "maybe". In the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, such a right "has not been established". Evidently in the other Circuit Courts (there are 11 in total) no case testing these waters has come to pass. Apparently the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue - that's really surprising.

The article goes on to define "public spaces". There are three kinds, traditional - streets, sidewalks, parks, etc.; limited - public property which the state has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity but is not required to open nor to keep open (no examples given); and non-public - public property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication (didn't give examples, maybe a records warehouse, military base, ??). As the public is allowed in the first two, so are photographers.

Lastly there's a long piece on photography of government buildings and mass transit locations. I must admit I was somewhat glazing over by this point but my sense was that for: Buildings - in the past they were largely viewed as off limits but that position has been changing (some what forced by court decisions), but not everyone at ground level seems to be getting the word. If you plan on photographing government buildings I'd do some homework with the agencies referred to therein and the talk to the locals first. Mass transit - there are examples given of photographers being accosted in train terminals, and ultimately vindicated. On the flip side, the photography in airport terminals (especially around TSA stations) is still somewhat questionable as the Supreme Court has ruled that they don't satisfy the standards the court has set for identifying public forums.

The underlying current through all of this article is that you do have to stand up for your rights. But if you do so in an educated, non-confrontational manner you can save yourself a lot of hassle.

I absolutely encourage you to not take my word for any of this. If you doubt any of it, read it for yourself. Do your own research. Assure/convince yourself. Just be sure you question your sources as well.

My main take away is that when anyone tells you something is black and white relative to a complicated legal issue, take it with a grain of salt, do some research, and make your opinion an educated one.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

Thanks for that Visioneer. I'll definitely take a look. I too thought photography fell under speech. There's also freedom of press to consider which is probably another muddy subject to get into. Although I don't officially work for any news outlet I would have been documenting a public event for other to see. Essentially that's what photo journalist do.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

derrickduff said:
Thanks for that Visioneer. I'll definitely take a look. I too thought photography fell under speech. There's also freedom of press to consider which is probably another muddy subject to get into. Although I don't officially work for any news outlet I would have been documenting a public event for other to see. Essentially that's what photo journalist do.

Search for the stories about the two reporters from the Toledo Blade who were detained last week for taking pictures of a tank factory, from the street and which shows up on Google Street view. So much for Freedom of Speech. The paper is now suing the government over the incident.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

MILLER4PRESIDENT2020 said:
police states dont happen overnight, your rights are slowly taken away until one day people wake up and ask "what the hell happened?"

I don't fear for my rights. I am fully aware of where they stand. To each their own. But your battle is not with some poor cop trying to do his job. It is with the FAA, the state government or town council. I am still waiting for the FAA to send me a cease and desist letter. And on that note, I'm out.
 
Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu

derrickduff said:
Thanks for that Visioneer. I'll definitely take a look. I too thought photography fell under speech. There's also freedom of press to consider which is probably another muddy subject to get into. Although I don't officially work for any news outlet I would have been documenting a public event for other to see. Essentially that's what photo journalist do.

Photography does fall under speech. The part about needing a message and a public audience for 1st amendment protection was new to me ... and it apparently applies to speech as well - "regardless of media" was supposedly the quote from the Supreme Court ruling. What wasn't covered is a definition of the message and audience required.

SilentAV8R said:
Search for the stories about the two reporters from the Toledo Blade who were detained last week for taking pictures of a tank factory, from the street and which shows up on Google Street view. So much for Freedom of Speech. The paper is now suing the government over the incident.

Apparently the crux of many (most?) of these disputes is that the courts have always (meaning over time) allowed SOME restrictions on free speech (and it's many incarnations). The problem is they've never laid out specific guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable. Frankly, I understand that - from years in a big corporation I know that there are both pluses and minuses associated with having very specific rules. Leeway is good, but it also leads to abuse. It's very hard to get just the right balance. Perhaps our system (as cumbersome as it is) is really the best solution - let's judge every situation on its own unique circumstances rather than trying to come up with regulations that cover every possible situation (basically an impossible task). The downside, of course, is time and money.

Judging from the examples I saw in the 1st amendment article I posted previously, I'd guess The Blade will win this one.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,357
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31