Photographic Expedition/ Civil Rights Workshop in Long Beach, California - WHO'S IN??

[Sparky]

http://boingboing.net/2011/08/14/lo...-attempts-to-acquire-weaponized-smallpox.html

 

[moose10101]

This statement in the article (the first sentence):

The Police Chief of Long Beach has confirmed that his department's policy is to detain photographers who do nothing more than take pictures in public places

is not supported by any of the quoted statements from the police chief. "Make contact" does not equal "detain". Nor is this statement supported:

He classes photography with other "suspicious activity" such as "attempts to acquire illegal or illicit biological agent (anthrax, ricin, Eboli, smallpox, etc.)" and "In possession, or utilizes, explosives (for illegal purposes)."

Has this PD actually detained anyone? That "article" looks like a bunch of overblown carp to me.

 

[Sparky]

I don't know - but the fact that the article is in the public domain is worrisome - and action should be taken to expose such illegal behaviour I think...

 

[moose10101]

I don't know - but the fact that the article is in the public domain is worrisome - and action should be taken to expose such illegal behaviour I think...

I asked you if this PD detained ANY photographers, and you say you "don't know". So where's the "illegal behaviour"? Further, the quotes from the police chief don't contain anything that would back up the wild accusations made in the "article".

And what does the article being in the public domain have to do with its veracity? Are you saying, "I saw it on the Internet, so it must be true"?

 

[Sparky]

Because it is 'visible' and in the news media channels - people will tend to believe it. That is (to my mind) illegal behaviour - because it is a misrepresentation of civil rights and a lie. The fact that people are not educated well enough to understand this should not be the point... their best interests should be protected in ALL cases.

I asked you if this PD detained ANY photographers, and you say you "don't know". So where's the "illegal behaviour"? Further, the quotes from the police chief don't contain anything that would back up the wild accusations made in the "article".

And what does the article being in the public domain have to do with its veracity? Are you saying, "I saw it on the Internet, so it must be true"?

 

[moose10101]

Because it is 'visible' and in the news media channels - people will tend to believe it. That is (to my mind) illegal behaviour - because it is a misrepresentation of civil rights and a lie.

Oh, so you believe the person who published the "article" is guilty of illegal behavior for misrepresenting the policies of the Long Beach PD?

 

[Sparky]

enough.