Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: You are under arrest, you need a permit to use that in NYC

  1. #1
    Regular Member vt357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    490

    Post imported post

    So now they are trying to regulate the first amendment as well as the second. I can't say I am surprised. I wonder if these permits are "shall issue?"

    Do the bolded statements sound familiar to anyone else?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/nyre...

    June 29, 2007
    City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography
    By Ray Rivera

    Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks.

    New rules being considered by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.

    The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.

    Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers.
    Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps discriminatory enforcement by police.
    “These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube,” said Christopher Dunn, the group’s associate legal director.

    Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, “where people routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or film.”
    The rule could also apply to people waiting in line to enter the Empire State Building or other tourist attractions.

    The rules define a “single site” as any area within 100 feet of where filming begins. Under the rules, the two or more people would not actually have to be filming, but could simply be holding an ordinary camera and talking to each other.
    The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction.

    “While the permitting scheme does not distinguish between commercial and other types of filming, we anticipate that these rules will have minimal, if any, impact on tourists and recreational photographers, including those that use tripods,” Ms. Cho said in an e-mail response to questions.

    Mr. Dunn said that the civil liberties union asked repeatedly for such a distinction in negotiations on the rules but that city officials refused, ostensibly to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited by professional filmmakers and photographers.
    City officials would not confirm that yesterday. But Mark W. Muschenheim, a lawyer with the city’s law department, which helped draft the rules, said, “There are few instances, if any, where the casual tourist would be affected.”

    The film office held a public hearing on the proposed rules yesterday, but no one attended. The only written comments the department received were from the civil liberties group, Ms. Cho said.

    Ms. Cho said the office expected to publish a final version of the rules at the end of July. They would go into effect a month later.

    The permits would be free and applications could be obtained online, Ms. Cho said. The draft rules say the office could take up to 30 days to issue a permit, but Ms. Cho said she expected that most would be issued within 24 hours.

    Mr. Dunn says that in addition to the rules being overreaching, they would also create enforcement problems.

    “Your everyday person out there with a camcorder is never going to know about the rules,” Mr. Dunn said. “It completely opens the door to discriminatory enforcement of the permit requirements, and that is of enormous concern to us because the people who are going to get pointed out are the people who have dark skin or who are shooting in certain locations.”

    The rules were promulgated as a result of just such a case, Mr. Dunn said.
    In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for several hours and questioned by police.

    During his detention, Mr. Sharma was told he was required to have a permit to film on city property. According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma sought information about how permits were granted and who was required to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless, the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a written explanation of its refusal.

    As part of a settlement reached in April, the film office agreed to establish written rules for issuing permits. Mr. Sharma could not be reached for comment yesterday.

    Mr. Dunn said most of the new rules were reasonable. Notably, someone using a hand-held video camera, as Mr. Sharma was doing, would no longer have to get a permit.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    vt357 wrote:
    before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks.
    There are now only two categories of real property, private and government property. And private property is leased from the government landlord by payment of taxes. If another will pay higher rent-taxes then you will be evicted by eminent domain, a la Kelo.

    It all comes together. So, where will you be permitted legally armed?

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed wher ethey will, with wits and guns and the truth. ******* NRA

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Somebody needs to tow Manhattanout to sea and conduct a SINKEX.



    I'm in!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    vt357 wrote:
    The film office held a public hearing on the proposed rules yesterday, but no one attended. The only written comments the department received were from the civil liberties group, Ms. Cho said.
    And the people of NY wonder how this stuff happens to them.....

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    Somebody needs to tow Manhattan*out to sea and conduct a SINKEX.

    *

    I'm in!
    Please tell me you didn't just give Bloomberg ammo to hit you with a conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism by scuttling the entire island of Manhattan. > ) That guy will pounce on anybody for any reason. *snicker*

    As for the article, good thing nakedshoplifter & bohdi aren't filming MMM meetings in NYC, it could get really expensive quickly.
    -Unrequited

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    As for the article, good thing nakedshoplifter & bohdi aren't filming MMM meetings in NYC, it could get really expensive quickly.
    But notice that at the core of their difficulties is the abuse of the significance of private, government and public properties.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. ******* NRA

  7. #7
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    Along the same lines of NYC overstepping your rights for "public safety" did anyone see the news that showed NYPD searching trucks going into Times Square and other areas? Does this search only apply to commerical vechiles? I would not consent to a search just for driving on a public road.

    What are these people thinking allow an unwarranted search? What's next? We believe a terrorist is in you apartment complex, we need to search all units? There may be a terrorist in your nieghborhood, we need to search your house? Where does this end?



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    possumboy wrote:
    Along the same lines of NYC overstepping your rights for "public safety" did anyone see the news that showed NYPD searching trucks going into Times Square and other areas?* Does this search only apply to commerical vechiles?* I would not consent to a search just for driving on a public road.
    They've been doing random tunnel searches on the Lincoln, Holland, and Battery tunnels since September 11th, I used to live right across the bridge, and saw covered trucks & vans waved over to the side. I never once questioned the legality of it until you put it so eloquently.
    -Unrequited

  9. #9
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    unrequited wrote:
    They've been doing random tunnel searches on the Lincoln, Holland, and Battery tunnels since September 11th, I used to live right across the bridge, and saw covered trucks & vans waved over to the side. I never once questioned the legality of it until you put it so eloquently.
    So do you know if they search private cars? They may have someability on the commercial side, but I can see none on the private side.

    Also, I guess I see no big problems, just little ones. I'm always thinking if I do this, or someone does this, were could it lead. That is how I got from cars to private homes. It is just part of my job to plan for the worst and protect against it at the lowest level possible.

    ------------------------------------------
    I was thinking of joining Paranoia's Anonymous, but the application look suspicious.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    possumboy wrote:
    So do you know if they search private cars?* They may have some*ability on the commercial side, but I can see none on the private side.
    I've seen unbadged (no ads or company names) vans (never mini-vans) pulled over.
    -Unrequited

  11. #11
    Regular Member possumboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,090

    Post imported post

    unrequited wrote:
    I've seen unbadged (no ads or company names) vans (never mini-vans) pulled over.
    I'm thinking, no officer, I do not consent to a search. Where the heck is the ACLU on this one? This is something they are normally all over. Maybe they are still trying to keep the Boy Scouts off Federal Government property here in Virginia or something.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •