Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: The Government's War on Cameras!

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    The Government's War on Cameras!

    some more info for those of us who use cameras and audio gear......

    www.Reason.TV

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY0MUARqisM

    Who will watch the watchers? In a world of ubiquitous, hand-held digital cameras, that's not an abstract philosophical question. Police everywhere are cracking down on citizens using cameras to capture breaking news and law enforcement in action.

    In 2009, police arrested blogger and freelance photographer Antonio Musumeci on the steps of a New York federal courthouse. His alleged crime? Unauthorized photography on federal property.

    Police cuffed and arrested Musumeci, ultimately issuing him a citation. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, he forced a settlement in which the federal government agreed to issue a memo acknowledging that it is totally legal to film or photograph on federal property.

  2. #2
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    This was also resolved with a big fine in Seattle when SPD officers roughed up a "cameraman".
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  3. #3
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    This was also resolved with a big fine in Seattle when SPD officers roughed up a "cameraman".
    "Resolved"? Using somebody else's money? I doubt it. How did the SPD suffer in a way that they don't want to suffer again?

    We need a law stating that it is a crime to interfere with the recording of police activities in public (though the publication of such recordings may be delayed up to 24 hours to prevent things like aiding a hostage-taker by filming the SWAT positions outside his house).

  4. #4
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hardin View Post

    We need a law stating that it is a crime to interfere with the recording of police activities in public
    We do not need a law. Photography/video is a right granted by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 06-26-2011 at 11:00 AM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  5. #5
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hardin View Post
    How did the SPD suffer in a way that they don't want to suffer again?
    Their illegal activity was exposed to the entire public. They certainly don't like that happening. As for what happens inside the department, you might be surprised. Management doesn't like to be publicly embarrassed. They usually make those who do so pay in ways you and I might never know. Some officers might even be reassigned to city park dog crap patrol or loose their assignments to the 'elite" units.

    I agree on the money part. Violation fines should come directly from the department's budget. Enough fines and they might find themselves driving older and older cars that smell worse and worse.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Photography/video is a right granted by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
    How can that be? They didn't have cameras back then?

    {sarcasm off}
    Last edited by xd shooter; 06-26-2011 at 11:50 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Squeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard,
    Posts
    827
    I have seen signs on federal property prohibitingthe use of photography back in the 60's. I don't know
    what is being done now with the camera/cell phone,
    but just having one while on fed. property COULD get
    you arrested. And this was before the internet.

  8. #8
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeak View Post
    I have seen signs on federal property prohibitingthe use of photography back in the 60's. I don't know
    what is being done now with the camera/cell phone,
    but just having one while on fed. property COULD get
    you arrested. And this was before the internet.
    A lot of those prohibitions had to do with security.

    Here's a note on Videoing or Photographing TSA operations at airports:

    TSA does not prohibit the public, passengers or press from photographing, videotaping or filming at security checkpoints, as long as the screening process is not interfered with or slowed down. We do ask you to not film or take pictures of the monitors. While the TSA does not prohibit photographs at screening locations, local laws, state statutes, or local ordinances might.

    Taking photographs may also prompt airport police or a TSA official to ask what your purpose is. It is recommended that you use the Talk To TSA program on tsa.gov to contact the Customer Support Manager at the airport to determine its specific policy. Or, if you are a member of the press, you should contact the TSA Office of Public Affairs.
    Last edited by amlevin; 06-26-2011 at 12:17 PM.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,666
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    Live Free or Die!

  10. #10
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeak View Post
    I have seen signs on federal property prohibitingthe use of photography back in the 60's. I don't know
    what is being done now with the camera/cell phone,
    but just having one while on fed. property COULD get
    you arrested. And this was before the internet.
    While engaging in your 1A right around Federal property you most likely will be illegally detained or even arrested. Even though it is legal as the Federal Gov was forced to point out in a memo.

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...Uufb9rkUqd01yQ

    Taking photographs may also prompt airport police or a TSA official to ask what your purpose is.
    Although engaged in a lawful activity protected by the Constitution you WILL be detained, identified, and most likely arrested.

    Photography is not a crime.
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 06-26-2011 at 01:24 PM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  11. #11
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    While engaging in your 1A right around Federal property you most likely will be illegally detained or even arrested
    The "Bulletin" specifically cautioned "officials" against doing exactly what you suggest.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  12. #12
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    The "Bulletin" specifically cautioned "officials" against doing exactly what you suggest.
    Yah, and yet that memo did nothing to curtail the illegal activity of Federal officers.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ence-Day/page2

    Post #44 shows a video from a week or so ago of a photographer being illegally detained for taking pictures outside a Federal Building with his father. This is just one example from hundreds that happen every single week.
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 06-26-2011 at 01:35 PM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    We need to. But they are colluding with other government officials and making it very difficult.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member fire suppressor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kitsap County
    Posts
    872
    Dose this no cameras on federal property thing apply to all federal property? We are talking a lot of different types of buildings how many of us have ever had a cell phone with vedio capabilities on us while in a post office
    "Fight like you train, train like you fight"

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850
    Quote Originally Posted by gogodawgs View Post
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    Darn public schooling... Made me use my google fu.

    I agree with SVG. Completely.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  16. #16
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by fire suppressor View Post
    Dose this no cameras on federal property thing apply to all federal property?
    The public has a right to photograph the exterior of Federal Buildings from public spaces.

    Please read this document released by the Federal Government regarding photography.

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...Uufb9rkUqd01yQ
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  17. #17
    Regular Member tombrewster421's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Roy, WA
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom First View Post
    Darn public schooling... Made me use my google fu.

    I agree with SVG. Completely.
    +1
    Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

  18. #18
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I remember many years ago when I was still in teh US Army, I was supposed to take a lot of pictures for a government project. Government film, government High dollar camera, of some very specific things, and at the same time, I was supposed to take a lot of other "personal" pictures so it did not look like I was targeting these specific installations, but only to act like I was a simple tourist . When the assignment was over, and the film developed, I was supposed to get my "personal" pictures back... not...I guess they liked them all.

  19. #19
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    We do not need a law. Photography/video is a right granted by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
    Oh, I agree. Please read again what I wrote - we need a law to make explicit that police interference with that right will be punished by more than a departmental wrist slap.

  20. #20
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Thanks for the clarification, I missed your point and stand corrected.

    p.s. And agree 100%.

    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  21. #21
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hardin View Post
    Oh, I agree. Please read again what I wrote - we need a law to make explicit that police interference with that right will be punished by more than a departmental wrist slap.
    As well as a prohibition against Unions hindering such disciplinary action. Some departments would love to get rid of their incompetent "employees" but the Unions are all in lockstep when it comes to blocking any action like this. Chief's now apparently have to "negotiate" with the Union in order to even reassign officers if the new assignment "offends" the disciplined officer.

    At least the Post Office knew how to deal with that. They'd just assign the worthless employee a "desk job" and then never give them any work. After they were about to die of boredom, the'd quit.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  22. #22
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by John Hardin View Post
    Oh, I agree. Please read again what I wrote - we need a law to make explicit that police interference with that right will be punished by more than a departmental wrist slap.
    There already is a law, just not a state one. Between this law and the 14th Amendment, you've got quite a punishment on tap:

    TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

    PART I--CRIMES

    CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS


    Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or
    custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
    Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights,
    privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or
    laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or
    penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his
    color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens,
    shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or
    both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation
    of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or
    threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be
    fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
    and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this
    section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,
    aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual
    abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or
    imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
    sentenced to death.

    And:

    TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

    PART I--CRIMES

    CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS


    Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
    intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
    or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
    secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
    because of his having so exercised the same; or
    If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
    premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise
    or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
    years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
    violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
    attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
    aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
    under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
    both, or may be sentenced to death.

    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    As well as a prohibition against Unions hindering such disciplinary action. Some departments would love to get rid of their incompetent "employees" but the Unions are all in lockstep when it comes to blocking any action like this. Chief's now apparently have to "negotiate" with the Union in order to even reassign officers if the new assignment "offends" the disciplined officer.

    At least the Post Office knew how to deal with that. They'd just assign the worthless employee a "desk job" and then never give them any work. After they were about to die of boredom, the'd quit.
    Last I checked, you can't make a legal contract to violate the law without voiding the contract. It wouldn't matter what the police union's deal with a city or state says, if the law says otherwise.
    Last edited by Difdi; 07-08-2011 at 04:30 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by fire suppressor View Post
    Dose this no cameras on federal property thing apply to all federal property? We are talking a lot of different types of buildings how many of us have ever had a cell phone with vedio capabilities on us while in a post office

    If there was a prohibition against photography on "Federal Property" wouldn't that make filming or photography illegal in National Parks?

    Just sayin'...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    104

    Not all federal property

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    If there was a prohibition against photography on "Federal Property" wouldn't that make filming or photography illegal in National Parks?

    Just sayin'...
    This is usually the case on military bases or military contractors. I grew up near Groton, CT and these signs were all around the Sub Base and Electric Boat, where they built a good number of the subs.

  25. #25
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    How can that be? They didn't have cameras back then?

    {sarcasm off}
    They had really fast sketch artists, like those court artists.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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