# Federal Judge Says Photographing Police Not Always Protected by 1st Amendment



## nerwin (Feb 25, 2016)

What do you think about this? Will we get in trouble for taking pictures of police officers doing their duties? 

Everyone wants to take a photo of a cop on a horse in NYC, will they just get thrown in jail because of that? I think they should be focusing on more criminal activities then some person with a camera that's not causing any harm. 

I'm slightly worried about the future of photography. 

Federal Judge Says Photographing Police Not Always Protected by 1st Amendment


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 25, 2016)

So now we have to 'be critical' of the po-po in order to exercise our 1A rights?

That's a very bad precedent.


----------



## Designer (Feb 25, 2016)

_"An appeal is reportedly planned in response to Judge Kearney’s decision."
_
NSS



nerwin said:


> I'm slightly worried about the future of photography The Constitution.


FIFY


----------



## nerwin (Feb 25, 2016)

Designer said:


> _"An appeal is reportedly planned in response to Judge Kearney’s decision."
> _
> NSS
> 
> ...



I swear none of them read the constitution.


----------



## pjaye (Feb 25, 2016)

nerwin said:


> What do you think about this? Will we get in trouble for taking pictures of police officers doing their duties?
> 
> Everyone wants to take a photo of a cop on a horse in NYC, will they just get thrown in jail because of that? I think they should be focusing on more criminal activities then some person with a camera that's not causing any harm.
> 
> ...


Why are you worried about the future of photography because of this decision?
I really dislike the argument "they should be focusing on more criminal activities". I see that argument all the time. Different police forces have different officers doing different jobs  in different departments. One officer doing his job that might focus on a bylaw or something that is not a violent crime does not mean that other crimes aren't being focused on. It's an argument that makes absolutely no sense to me.

As for taking pictures of a police officer on a horse, there's this really cool think that sometimes works, it's called asking. Every time I've asked, they have never had an issue.


----------



## Designer (Feb 25, 2016)

480sparky said:


> So now we have to 'be critical' of the po-po in order to exercise our 1A rights?
> 
> That's a very bad precedent.


This is what we get when judges find their law degrees in a box of Crackerjack.©


----------



## Designer (Feb 25, 2016)

nerwin said:


> I swear none of them read the constitution.


Or they "read" it without comprehension.


----------



## Gary A. (Feb 25, 2016)

That really sucks. In a public venue, generally, most anything is free game.  The police should not have any additional privileges above and beyond an average citizen. So what if you're in Times Square and shoot a scene, photograph a corner where there's an undercover cop ... does that give him/her the right to arrest you? You take a selfie and there'a a cop in the background, how about surveillance cameras, must they be turned off for fear of videotaping cops ...  et cetera.

I think the interpretation used by the judge, is really really reaching for a way to limit photography in public. I think this is a real trampling of our 1st Amendment rights.


----------



## Gary A. (Feb 25, 2016)

Designer said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > I swear none of them read the constitution.
> ...


Oh he understands the Constitution, which is why he is making the decision 'limited'.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 25, 2016)

480sparky said:


> So now we have to 'be critical' of the po-po in order to exercise our 1A rights?
> 
> That's a very bad precedent.



So if I start taking pictures of cops, the minute one grabs me I'm protected by the First Amendment only if I spit on them and start screaming about the violence inherit in the system?

Well sure.. because that makes.. umm.. perfect sense.


----------



## nerwin (Feb 25, 2016)

symplybarb said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think about this? Will we get in trouble for taking pictures of police officers doing their duties?
> ...



Not where I live, they mostly sit in their cruisers glued to their phones instead of policing. I know more populated areas have bigger departments and officers assigned to different tasks. But I just don't see the point in a cop giving someone a fine or worse,  jailed for someone taking picture of them doing their duties in a public area. I agree though, I should have worded it different, my bad.

But I'm not worried about the future of photography just because of this story. I've been hearing a lot about photography being a crime and if this trend continues and people become even more afraid....who knows...


----------



## pjaye (Feb 25, 2016)

nerwin said:


> symplybarb said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...



Interesting, I have not heard a lot about photography being a crime. I have heard about photographing certain things/activities being illegal but not photography itself being a crime. 
I'm sorry you have issues with your police department, I don't have that issue here. Our officers work hard, are very engaged and have a large community presence. 
And you do realize that the police have no choice but to enforce the law right? They are not responsible for creating the laws, but their job, by definition, is enforcing those laws.


----------



## nerwin (Feb 25, 2016)

symplybarb said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > symplybarb said:
> ...



Yes, cops are suppose to enforce the law, but they also can make an informative decision too. I've done stupid stuff in school in which was an arrestable offense, but did I get arrested? Nope. The police officer didn't think it was necessary.

So you'd be okay going to jail for photographing a cop say during an event? Not me, I'd fight it. But if the police officer came over and said he doesn't want his picture being taken and asks me to delete it..okay no problem. Do you think I'd should be jailed?


----------



## KmH (Feb 25, 2016)

Lets see if the decision holds up under appeal.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 25, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Yes, cops are suppose to enforce the law, but they also can make an informative decision too. I've done stupid stuff in school in which was an arrestable offense, but did I get arrested? Nope. The police officer didn't think it was necessary.
> 
> So you'd be okay going to jail for photographing a cop say during an event? Not me, I'd fight it. But if the police officer came over and said he doesn't want his picture being taken and asks me to delete it..okay no problem. Do you think I'd should be jailed?



Well yes, I think you should be jailed.  But that's a separate issue.. lol

Like you if an officer, or anyone really expresses a desire to me that they don't wish to be photographed I delete it.  It's common courtesy really.


----------



## nerwin (Feb 25, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, cops are suppose to enforce the law, but they also can make an informative decision too. I've done stupid stuff in school in which was an arrestable offense, but did I get arrested? Nope. The police officer didn't think it was necessary.
> ...



Luckily for me, that hasn't happened yet. I've taken pictures of cops before and sometimes they notice and smile for the camera or wave.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 25, 2016)

nerwin said:


> Luckily for me, that hasn't happened yet. I've taken pictures of cops before and sometimes they notice and smile for the camera or wave.



I don't shoot a lot of stuff where this sort of situation comes into play, but I've done a couple of events and on the rare occasion where a police officer is involved it's never been an issue.  Still it baffles me that a judge would even consider something like this, it's just bizarre.

Basically he's saying I have a First Amendment right to disagree or protest, but I have no freedom of speech or expression if I'm not expressing an opposing viewpoint.  It's sort of a bizarro world view in my humble opinion.


----------



## pjaye (Feb 25, 2016)

nerwin said:


> symplybarb said:
> 
> 
> > nerwin said:
> ...



If I broke the law, then yes, I fully expect to pay the consequences. You mention jail, are you sure this offence would get you put in jail and not just a fine? If I had an issue with that law, I would take it up with the people responsible passing the laws, not the police for doing their jobs, which are already incredibly hard as it is. 

I'm a responsible adult who strives to not break the law. I also accept responsibility if I do break the law. Would I argue my side, possibly. In court where it's supposed to be argued. 
I have a healthy respect for the law. And for police. I'm sorry you haven't had the same experiences. I can only imagine the crime rate where you live if as you state ",they mostly sit in their cruisers glued to their phones instead of policing". That would be horrible.


----------



## nerwin (Feb 25, 2016)

symplybarb said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> > symplybarb said:
> ...



Well I live in a small state in a small town where there is only 3 cops. There barely is any crime here, I don't live in an area where there are multiple police departments and cop cars driving around everywhere. I'm lucky if I see one cop car in month. So no, I don't really know what its like to live in a huge populated area where there is a police officer on every corner.

I have much respect for law enforcement, but US laws? That's debatable. I find a lot of laws that are stupid. I have family who were and are police officers. My grandfather was a big time cop so I have a lot of respect for them.


----------



## Designer (Feb 25, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> It's sort of a bizarro world view in my humble opinion.


People with that worldview are allowed to vote and hold high office too, apparently.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 25, 2016)

Designer said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > It's sort of a bizarro world view in my humble opinion.
> ...



True, but then if I stood around worrying about the lack of common sense present in most elected/appointed officials I'd never get anything done.. lol


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 25, 2016)

symplybarb said:


> Interesting, I have not heard a lot about photography being a crime.....


As a general rule, in the US it's not. But 99% of the population can't be bothered to actually read the Constitution. They've gotten thier education through YouTube Law, part of Google University, and their interpretations are affirmed by the Court of Public Opinion.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 25, 2016)

Read the whole thing - go to Scribd and look up the document number (in blue printing at the bottom of the shared article).

All Petapixel did is share one page of it... and their purpose seems to be to get people to look at their website so they can make money from ads. Their self proclaimed 'editor' seems to have no background in journalism - I have more than he seems to and that's not much. So it seems to be a marketing guy reposting stories or writing articles without researching. But he got people to look...

I'm only part way thru it but the guy in the case actually got a citation because he wouldn't leave the scene NOT because he took pictures. He said he was passing by and stopped to watch what was going on and took - ONE picture. When the officer kept telling him to leave he refused to go; he did not keep the phone or delete the photo. (After an incident the police are usually trying to clear the area and not have people hanging around.)

The other case involved a woman who is a 'self described "legal observer" ' who 'claims to wear a pink "identifier" ' and "While she thinks the police know who she is, she is not a liason with the police."

So she's what, just another wannabee? She apparently made herself some ID that's meaningless... is she deluded? or misguided at best in thinking she's something she's not. Seems like she sued because she said an officer restrained her but she didn't get charged or cited.

And I quit reading after 5 pages, go read the other 16 pages if you want... I don't know if somewhere in this there were legitimate complaints about how a police officer treated a citizen (there may be) but this doesn't seem like it's about a photographer being told to stop taking pictures or having photos deleted, etc.

Neither one seems to actually be a photographer, so I don't think this is about photography but more about citizen interactions with a police officer.


----------



## nerwin (Feb 25, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> Read the whole thing - go to Scribd and look up the document number (in blue printing at the bottom of the shared article).
> 
> All Petapixel did is share one page of it... and their purpose seems to be to get people to look at their website so they can make money from ads. Their self proclaimed 'editor' seems to have no background in journalism - I have more than he seems to and that's not much. So it seems to be a marketing guy reposting stories or writing articles without researching. But he got people to look...
> 
> ...



So PetaPixel kind of clickbaited this.


----------



## robbins.photo (Feb 25, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> Read the whole thing - go to Scribd and look up the document number (in blue printing at the bottom of the shared article).
> 
> All Petapixel did is share one page of it... and their purpose seems to be to get people to look at their website so they can make money from ads. Their self proclaimed 'editor' seems to have no background in journalism - I have more than he seems to and that's not much. So it seems to be a marketing guy reposting stories or writing articles without researching. But he got people to look...
> 
> ...



So once again a perfectly good rant is ruined by the facts.

Sigh..

Oh well, scones anyone?


----------



## nerwin (Feb 25, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> So once again a perfectly good rant is ruined by the facts.
> 
> Sigh..
> 
> Oh well, scones anyone?



Sounds better than what I had for lunch today.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 25, 2016)

Seems like that's what they're doing... didn't used to think that, but used to just glance at their articles - which seemed to be about camera stuff. Then they posted something that I'd seen elsewhere and thought their version (which went viral) was inaccurate to say the least. Then I looked up the editor... one thing leads to another. So I don't exactly have a very good opinion of them anymore.

I mean, what drives a lot of these type sites? Ads... if they weren't getting money from ads would they even be in business??


Scones sound better than silly rabbits. (see - the Coffeehouse)


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 25, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> Read the whole thing - go to Scribd and look up the document number (in blue printing at the bottom of the shared article).
> 
> All Petapixel did is share one page of it...........



The entire document is on the page linked to in the OP.


----------



## dennybeall (Feb 27, 2016)

News reporting in so many areas has deteriorated to such a low point it's hard to ever take a headline at face value. My favorite here locally was when they reported a youth was sentenced to jail for stealing a can of soda. In the text we read that the can of soda was in the refrigerator of someone else's house and the "youth" was a 3 time convicted burglar, and the people were asleep in the bedroom at the time.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 27, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:
			
		

> Seems like that's what they're doing... didn't used to think that, but used to just glance at their articles - which seemed to be about camera stuff. Then they posted something that I'd seen elsewhere and thought their version (which went viral) was inaccurate to say the least. Then I looked up the editor... one thing leads to another. So I don't exactly have a very good opinion of them anymore.
> 
> I mean, what drives a lot of these type sites? Ads... if they weren't getting money from ads would they even be in business??
> 
> ...



PetaPixel is a huge clickbait site! Or, as they self-proclaim, "The coolest blog on the Internet for photography enthusiasts! Photo and camera news, reviews, and inspiration."

The name of the game is to get people to click on the link!


----------



## snowbear (Feb 27, 2016)

I actually heard about this earlier on another site.  This is link I got from the Washington Post: https://phillylawblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/the-trial-court-opinion.pdf


----------



## fotothrills (Mar 4, 2016)

With the way things are going, I'm not only worried about the future of photography but also about our way of life. If anyone can't see the insanity all across the globe today, he or she has a serious problem.


----------



## runnah (Mar 4, 2016)

Two things I know are true.

1. Things are always getting better.
2. People always assume things are getting worse.


----------

