You can't take pictures of Federal Buildings

BrianShaw said:

Ummm... we fundamentally don't disagree, but when does running into one or two a-holes who misinterpret the law, or don't know the law as well as you think they should, or mistakenly enforce the law incorrectly become "trading freedom for security"? I don't htink that's what Old Wise Ben had in mind....


Have a nice day, sir or madame.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear we mostly agree, but I think that is EXACTLY what Mr. Franklin had in mind, fundamentally.

His statement speaks to the vigilance required to protect rights from creeping obliteration.

Those who poo-poo or call paranoid those who speak out against minor infractions of our rights, should carefully reconsider their position on the slippery-slope of compliance.

I would rather be a free asshole than a polite prisoner.

And a truly fine day, right back at you.

bobwysiwyg said:

Can't speak to the PM's popularity, but could those same photo op positions be construed as good sniper vantage points?

Click to expand...

He was about to give a speech that, as usual, spoke down to the people, I was trying to shoot him through the teleprompter to show the words as he read them. PR did not like that idea and asked RCMP to remove me due to security risks, they said no, I was not a risk and I shot.

Fast forward 2 months or so, the RCMP no longer say no to the PR team!!

It was a closed room and we were all cleared on the way into the room, ZERO risk, 100 percent Stalinism.

As a photojournalist who gets hassled every single working day of my life by some asshole who thinks he is the Enforcer, Judge, Jury and Jail Keeper all wrapped up into one, I can not tell you how happy I am that people are starting to speak out!



"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. " Ben Franklin

^^^^^ This Gentleman was a very wise man!

Kino said:

Those who poo-poo or call paranoid those who speak out against minor infractions of our rights, should carefully reconsider their position on the slippery-slope of compliance.

Click to expand...

I'll certainly be giving that more thought in the future.

paul ron said:

Now back to my bridge signs. Are they legal? What is the law? I'm still confused about photography in NYC. I shoot anyway n if I get stopped I do some stealth shots form the hip but hauling an RB67 is hardly stealth.

Click to expand...

The Triborough is controlled by the MTA, which has had it's own problems with trying to restrict photography on the subway. The ACLU has pushed back on that, with some success, though the official transit rules still say "1050.6 (c)(5) No person shall use media devices such as films, slides or videotapes." The bridge & Tunnel rules don't mention photography explicitly, just say they you have to obey posted signs and the orders of officers. The MTA is a "public-benefit authority," which means that it has a certain amount of corporate autonomy from the chartering state, but isn't "private" in the usual sense of the word either. They're corporate entities owned by the state, but separate from the state government.

Which means, I think, if you want to challenge the tunnel sign, you'd have to be willing to sacrifice yourself as a test case.

paul ron said:

Here in NYC there are weird signs popping up in certain public places like the road way just before the TriBoro bridge. It says you can't take picture of the bridge. WHY? I was told it's concidered private property belonging to the Bridge n Tunnel Authority. ummmmm...

Click to expand...

It is not the private or public status of the subject that is the issue. It is private versus public *view*, which is based on where YOU are when you shoot. If you are shooting from a spot that is public, you can, of course, shoot visible private property. The only thing they can do to prevent pix from public property is to put up a fence to block the public view, or come out and stand in front of your camera lens. If you are shooting from private property that is open to the public (such as a shopping mall), you are OK as well.

Even if you are taking photos on private property, you are doing nothing wrong until you have been specifically told/asked not to do so. Even in that case, the issue for which you can get busted is not actually taking the pix, but for breaking the rules on private property, which is enforced as trespassing. You can get a trespassing ticket for doing this, but they may not take your camera or film. Whatever you have snapped is yours to keep, and you get a trespassing ticket if you are not out of there by the time the police arrive. Don't even think about giving up your shots unless a judge orders it or you are going to get killed/hurt over it.

Thanks.

It would be nice to have all these laws handy when the A-holes are trying to impead on my rights. Well next year when I retire, I'll be trying out these laws with a laundry list of places I want to shoot. I'll have plenty of time to play the game. I hate anyone to tell me I have no right... not in my America anyway. I know too many people that fought for our rights to give em up so easily.

Now where can I get a copy of these rules n laws? I hate being caught off guard. Perhaps we can get a sticky posted of em on the photo sites everywhere? There should be no mistakes, that way we are all playing by the same rules.

This would be a good start: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

paul ron said:

Now where can I get a copy of these rules n laws?

Click to expand...

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Good luck.

BrianShaw said:

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Good luck.

Click to expand...

That is what I carry with me when shooting, along with "We The People", a thin book containing many important U.S. documents and speech transcriptions, including, of course, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You should also know key appeals decisions. It won't stop determined idiots, but has helped a lot on several occasions. I personally need to brush up on this, as the ones I know all relate to the press performing their jobs, and not to the average Joe on the street (though there is no real legal distinction between the two unless on private property).

Also, know the state laws that apply. For instance, I know CA penal code section 409.5 article (d) by heart, and carry the entirety of section 409.5 printed out and laminated. This will help you if you are working for the news media and want to go behind police lines. Article (d) is the response to police who state something similar to that which is contained in articles (a) and (b).

"California Penal Code Section 409.5

409.5. (a) Whenever a menace to the public health or safety is created by a calamity such as flood, storm, fire, earthquake, explosion, accident, or other disaster, officers of the California Highway Patrol, California State Police Division, police departments, marshal's office or sheriff's office, any officer or employee of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designated a peace officer by subdivision (h) of Section 830.2, any officer or employee of the Department of Parks and Recreation designated a peace officer by subdivision (g) of Section 830.2, any officer or employee of the Department of Fish and Game designated a peace officer under subdivision (f) of Section 830.2, and any publicly employed full-time lifeguard or publicly employed full-time marine safety officer while acting in a supervisory position in the performance of his or her official duties, may close the area where the menace exists for the duration thereof by means of ropes, markers, or guards to any and all persons not authorized by the lifeguard or officer to enter or remain within the enclosed area. If the calamity creates an immediate menace to the public health, the local health officer may close the area where the menace exists pursuant to the conditions set forth in this section.

(b) Officers of the California Highway Patrol, California State Police Division, police departments, marshal's office or sheriff's office, officers of the Department of Fish and Game designated as peace officers by subdivision (f) of Section 830.2, or officers of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designated as peace officers by subdivision (h) of Section 830.2 may close the immediate area surrounding any emergency field command post or any other command post activated for the purpose of abating any calamity enumerated in this section or any riot or other civil disturbance to any and all unauthorized persons pursuant to the conditions set forth in this section whether or not the field command post or other command post is located near to the actual calamity or riot or other civil disturbance.

(c) Any unauthorized person who willfully and knowingly enters an area closed pursuant to subdivision (a) or

(b) and who willfully remains within the area after receiving notice to evacuate or leave shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(d) Nothing in this section shall prevent a duly authorized representative of any news service, newspaper, or radio or television station or network from entering the areas closed pursuant to this section."

The problem with letting the goon squad get away with pushing us around is that things like this are now on the agenda:

Dead Link Removed

Things just keep getting worse and worse. Next thing you know, some photojournalist will be shooting photos of a demonstration somewhere, and appear on Homeland Security's Information Systems as someone to watch. They will just walk around with their equipment in their pockets and whatever information is retrieved will go into the database. You KNOW that's the next step. If you doubt that, consider that even small town America now is peppered with cameras at major intersections. Oh, I'm sure if you make a stink about it, you'd hear some local politician claim that the cameras are there to prove who was wrong in an accident in an intersection. But I don't think that is the real agenda. Intersections are where traffic flow changes. It is at intersections that you can surveil and trail a subject on the run. Maybe a subject such as a photographer who is taking photos of the Federal Reserve Building??????

"Are you a slave or are you a sovereign?" That was a question often heard by one of my teachers of constitutional law. That and... "You can't be a little pregnant", which implied that either you are a slave in your mind, or you're not. A slave will ask the government what he can do. A sovereign knows that he/she is born with inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and knows he/she does not need "permission" by any government goon to do lawful things such as standing on public property and snapping photos or videotaping the Federal Reserve Building which is private property. If they do not want photos to be taken of their building, they can take lawful steps to ensure that nobody can see their audacious extravagent architecture from public property such as the sidewalk out front. The monkey is on their shoulder, not the photographer's. Pretending that you must abide by some goon opinions by walking away means you admit you are a slave. Once you do that there is no turning back to revisit your rights. You just alienated yourself from your inherent inalienable (by someone else) rights.

Sorry if this makes some people wince, but I don't much care for easy words on this particular issue. You cannot be a little bit pregnant.

And talk like this is being watched n databases are being created by the feds all the time.... 1960s n 70s. Show up at a demopnstration n you had a file. The only difference is face recognition technology n better tracking equipment that you carry becaue you are cool n up to the latest fads or just too lazy n "need" these gizmos n gagets.

What's new? As long as you play by the rules there is nothing anyone can do, but hell if I give up my freedoms.

What pisses me off is how easily everyone gives up rights for fads. Cell phone conversations can be wire taped without a court paper. Hard wire still needs a judge to sign off. GPS in your cell phones, on Star... nice hey?... trackers. E-Zpass, Metro cards... Easy trackers. STUPID!... these are your freedoms being sold off because people are lazy or you're too important to miss a text message or a call from a friend sitting in the other isle accross from you. Spitting out your credit card numbers in public as if you have a private conversation, phne numbers being yelled into a walkie talkie phone at top volume on the train.

YEAH YEAH conspiracy theory... n for the good of the masses, safety n all that crap.... watch n see? I've been watching a long as I grow bald n every time, I always manage to get the last "I told you so" at every turn. Big Brother doesn't want you too educated, how patriotic was your patriot act? Is it for your own good? Who makes the decisions on what's good for you now? OOOps I might have said something that isn't PC... a kinder censorship of speach? Pinging my IP yet? Hold on someone is at the door.....

... and whatever you do, don't use those grocery store discount cards... trackers. They'll know what you are eating!

BrianShaw said:

... and whatever you do, don't use those grocery store discount cards... trackers. They'll know what you are eating!

Click to expand...

hehe. Most of the time they allow you to type in a phone number to get the savings. If they look at the phone number I'm typing in, they might wonder why someone from out of town keeps buying food from that particular location!

1SharpMonkey said:

A slave will ask the government what he can do. A sovereign knows that he/she is born with inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and knows he/she does not need "permission" by any government goon to do lawful things such as standing on public property and snapping photos or videotaping the Federal Reserve Building which is private property.

Click to expand...

A free man can say "No!". A slave cannot.

As Judge Hand said: "The Spirit of Liberty lies in the hearts of men."

1SharpMonkey said:

Perhaps we should just stop having all conversations unless they are conversations of love and mutual respect and back-stroking so that nobody gets their feelings hurt. And then we can ignore the problems of the world as if they weren't there. We could pretend like the greatest robbery of all history didn't happen and all the party players thereof (of which the Federal Reserve which is a non-governmental entity is a member), were simply doing their job and we should not question them or their motives.

On second hand thought, I think that is what "they" would want us to do. Nobody questioning them. Nobody standing against their usurped power. Everyone singing Kum-Bah-Yah and having love-fests around the campfire, roasting marshmallows with Stepfordville smiles on their faces.

:rolleyes:

Click to expand...

Perhaps we can refrain from personal attacks. Your cynicism and sarcasm is unappreciated and misused.

EASmithV said:

Perhaps we can refrain from personal attacks. Your cynicism and sarcasm is unappreciated and misused.

Click to expand...

Perhaps "we"? Are you speaking for me or is there a mouse in your pocket or do you normally talk about yourself in the plural?

Misused? The average person doesn't want to give any mindspace to things like the Constitution of the United States of America. I on the other hand happen to know much about it, the era, and all kinds of general and specific knowledge of Common Law and Admiralty Law and the difference of both. I devoted hours upon hours on these kind of things in and out of the law library. I know more about them than the rules of football. How is it misused to speak the plain truth? You're expecting too much from me if you expect me to coddle a grown man and lie to him by saying that he lacks a slave's mind when he sucks up to the man even though he doesn't have to.