Photography is Not a Crime

49 responses so far ↓

• 1 B // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:15 PM

  that’s quite a new law. ‘On charge of … we’ll talk to the Phoenix Police Department about it.’ wonder what statute that is.

• 2 ClintJCL // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM

  Hmm… Can this process be monetized? Lawsuit?

• 3 Tom McElvy // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:34 PM

  Perhaps everyone should grab a copy of Bert Krages “THE PHOTOGRAPHERS RIGHT” and fax it to all the Federal Police in the various buildings around the country….think they would get a clue? Probably not…. buit it would be fun! The PHOTOGRAPHER’S RIGHT can be downloaded at http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

• 4 Andrew DeFilippis // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:35 PM

  I say you get a bunch of people together to go down there at the same time and just start taking massive photographs and video of the building and the surrounding area…

• 5 genewitch // Apr 6, 2009 at 11:43 PM

  andrew, that would lead to mass arrests and rriot charges. but think of the footage!

• 6 hawkeye // Apr 7, 2009 at 6:47 AM

  Are the cops in the pic the same cops that tried to stop the man from from taking pictures of the building?
  Why don`t you just show the pic`s to their children,Hell! show it to the entire neighborhood,and explain to the children,and the neighbors that these people,the parents are Communist,and will do what ever they are told to do because they left their brain at the Academy.
  They are told what to do,and they do it…Constitutional,or not..it`s dosn`t matter.The do what they are told to do..period!!
  What do you expect? That`s how they are trained..and do not forget about the box at the Academy where the brains are collected,and sent to the dump….The Kids will love it!

• 7 jones // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM

  I didn’t see any harassment. They asked him what he was doing, big deal. Is it against the law to ask people with camera’s questions? Asking somebody what they are doing is harassment but videotaping people against their wishes isn’t harassment? I just saw a couple of guys doing their job.

  The video taker sure didn’t get the reaction he was hoping for did he. I think he wanted to get arrested or wanted them to make a bigger deal out of it. Is it really “harassment” when the person being “harassed” wants to be “harassed”.

• 8 Carlos Miller // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM

  Jones,

  Threatening someone with arrest for doing something completely legal is not harassment?

• 9 jones // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:14 AM

  Carlos, videotaping somebody when they don’t want you to isn’t harassment?

  BTW it is completely legal for the security guards to tell this guy they will call the police and have him arrested.

• 10 Nerdbeard // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:27 AM

  Jones, I’m curious. Can you drop the bravado and doubletalk for a moment and tell us what your problem is?

• 11 Carlos Miller // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:28 AM

  Carlos, videotaping somebody when they don’t want you to isn’t harassment?

  From a legal standpoint, no.

• 12 jones // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:50 AM

  From a legal standpoint, no

  And from a legal standpoint them asking him what he is doing and even threatening to call the police isn’t harassment.

  Carlos do you admit that the security guards did nothing to break the law?

• 13 Carlos Miller // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:56 AM

  I am not convinced that there is no law that would allow a security guard to threaten to arrest a citizen on false charges.

  Regardless, I wonder how his supervisors would feel about that.

  If that type of behavior is going to be encouraged, you shouldn’t act surprise when people like me and my readers disregard anything that comes out of their mouths.

• 14 NYCPhotorights // Apr 7, 2009 at 11:23 AM

  Jones. threatening someone with arrest when they are engaged in a perfectly LEGAL activity in an attempt to interfere with or stop that perfectly LEGAL activity IS harassment. It can also be construed to be a violation of USC Title 42 section 1983.

  Security guards may ask what someone is doing and conversely we have the right not to answer. They do NOT have the right to threaten anyone, especially if NO LAW IS BEING BROKEN!

• 15 jones // Apr 7, 2009 at 12:22 PM

  They didn’t threaten to arrest anybody, they threatened to call the police and have the police arrest them. Carlos, you and your readers shouldn’t act surprised when they come talk to you and question you.

  NYCP they didn’t deprive this guy of any rights, they didn’t touch him, they didn’t confiscate his camera. They said if you keep filming we’re going to have the police come and arrest you. They didn’t break any law and they also have the freedom of speech.

• 16 NYCPhotorights // Apr 7, 2009 at 12:45 PM

  Jones: Are you serious? How is it not depriving someone of their rights to film in public by threatening to have them arrested if they continue? In effect the security guards are using threat and intimidation to deprive people of their LEGAL rights.

  Freedom of speech does not include making implicit or explicit THREATS! They also LIED by telling the photographer that he was breaking the law when in fact NO LAW was being broken.

  Being questioned is one thing – being threatened and prevented from continuing a legal activity is quite another.

• 17 jones // Apr 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM

  Then sue them, but they didn’t break the law. The guy in the video was trying to goat the security guards but it didn’t work.

  Besides, you guys all say they don’t know the law and they think it is illegal to take pictures. If that’s the case and they really believe your breaking the law then they really have the right to call the police on you.

  I can see it now. A mother see’s a man taking pictures of her and her kids in the park. She tells the man to stop or she is calling the police and having him arrested. She then calls the police and the police tell her he isn’t breaking the law so there is nothing they can do. Then they tell her, sorry but we have to arrest you because you deprived him of his rights.

• 18 OmegaWolf747 // Apr 7, 2009 at 1:29 PM

  I believe that as long as the person video taping or taking pictures isn’t interfering with or harassing other people, they certainly have the right to take pictures and video tape.

• 19 Rizzin // Apr 7, 2009 at 3:21 PM

  So according to jones its not only perfectly legal for police and security guards to deliberately lie to people to get them the stop doing something they dont want done (taking pictures in this instance) its an acceptable and ligament practice.

  But god help you (because the State sure as hell won’t) if you misspeak or misremember anything as they grill you for why you are engaged in legal behavior (taking pictures) because they will file charges against you as fast as they can.

  Its no wonder why so many have so little respect for cops anymore with attitudes like this. With an approach like this to Law Enforcement they really ARE out to get you.

  @jones, in your example story there is little reason to believe the mother knows enough about the law to get the photog arrested. However we do have at least SOME reason to believe that federal security guards and at LEAST police officers DO know the law well enough to know when something is legal and when its not. They are counting on the photog NOT knowing the laws well enough to tell them they are wrong which come pretty damn close to abuse under the color of the law in my book. Also every time we KNOWINGLY catch an officer lying about the law it destroys any credibility they have in any future encounters.
  But I can see where that works to their advantage as well, eventually they figure they will find (or create) a situation where they can make the photog believe they are still lying and then they get extra brownie points for more arrests and convictions.

• 20 NYCPhotorights // Apr 7, 2009 at 5:23 PM

  Jones

  Conveniently you are ignoring the fact that photography is LEGAL. Cops and security guards are only enforcers of the law – the LEGISLATIVE branch of the government enacts the law. Enforcers should only enforce laws as they are written.

  A cop or federal security guard should NEVER tell a photographer to stop taking pictures of a site he is legally entitled to take pictures of.

  By your logic that threatening anyone with having them arrested is acceptable then how about if I stand in front of my property and threaten everyone who looks at my house that I will call the police and have them arrested? Photography is NOT a crime – get that through your head!

• 21 jones // Apr 7, 2009 at 5:58 PM

  First of all we are talking about security guards not cops so to Rizzin who says “So according to jones its not only perfectly legal for police and security guards…… I never said anything about the police so either stop putting words into my mouth or learn how to read.

  NYC – If you want to tell people who look at your house your going to call the police you wouldn’t be breaking any laws. If one of those people called the police after you threatened them I don’t think the police would come arrest you for making the threat.

• 22 Stanley Winters // Apr 7, 2009 at 7:50 PM

  Is lying illegal? I know in court it would be, as one is often “swearing” what you are saying is the truth. But if a cop lies to you, does that stand up in court if I want to sue them down the road? I’m pretty sure cops can lie all they want, especially if it “helps” them do their job.

  And yes, this could be abused, as can almost anything. As a point about this video, I would say both sides are encroaching on the lines of harassment in general… or at least annoying me.

  Legally, I think the federal security guards should be more aware of the current state of the nation more so than a civilian. That’s part of what we pay them for, as far as I know. But I don’t see them really overstepping their bounds in this video in any way.

  If they ended up calling the cops, I can only hope the cops would have just laughed the whole thing off. But like many, I have fears it would have just escalated, the videographer’s attitude being a part of that.

  Of course, everyone is on edge with the end of times coming and all…

• 23 jones // Apr 7, 2009 at 8:34 PM

  Watching this video again it’s the person taking the video who is being confrontational and trying to escalate things but he failed.

  Security guard – Your not under arrest or anything

  Douche bag with camera – Am I free to go

  Security guard – Yes

  Douche bag with camera – Am I being detained?

  Security guard – We just want to ask you some questions

  Douche bag with camera – You didn’t answer my question.

  YES HE DID, HE TOLD YOU THAT YOUR NOT UNDER ARREST AND THEN YOU ASKED IF YOU WERE FREE TO GO AND HE SAID YES.

  YOU THEN WANT TO KNOW IF YOUR BEING DETAINED. HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO ASK, THEY SAID YOU WERE FREE TO GO AND NOT UNDER ARREST SO OBVIOUSLY YOU WERE NOT BEING DETAINED AND ARE STANDING THEIR OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL.

  They don’t have to answer your questions but did anyways.

  The security guards then seem to get a little irritated, probably because of your inability to understand the answers to your own questions or they realize your just trying to escalate this into something. I think they acted pretty professional considering you were basically trying to goat them into doing something that would probably cost them their jobs.

• 24 ALL BE DAMNED // Apr 7, 2009 at 8:40 PM

  if you would have WATCHED THE VIDEO jones the gaurd kept stepping in front of him blocking his path…………( befor you say i didnt watch it i watched 6 times in the last hour ) so again he had the right to ask if he was being detained and again if the Gaurd cop or what ever he was would MOVE HIS FAT LAZY OLD ASS he could have walked away

• 25 jones // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:05 PM

  Ok, watching it again it sounds like the guard says “not yet” when he says am I free to leave, it originally sounded like yes.

  The security guards did nothing wrong and certainly didn’t do anything illegal. If you think laws were broken maybe the camera man should try to press charges.

  The cameraman would have been smarter to just ignore the guard and walk away, if the guard grabbed him then he would have the story he was looking for. The cameraman here is immediately confrontational with the guard and is obviously trying to escalate things.

• 26 NYCPhotorights // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:36 PM

  Stanley Winters

  The mere fact that a security guard told someone to stop taking pictures when they are clearly allowed to take pictures is unacceptable. Everything else is irrelevant. Photography of any architecture (including federal buildings) is legal and the security guards had no right to tell the photographer to stop.

• 27 jones // Apr 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM

  NYC – They have the right, if your photographing me in public and I don’t like it do I have the right to tell you to stop or do I not have the same freedom of speech that you have?

• 28 Voice of Reason // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:14 PM

  “jones” asked, Is it really “harassment” when the person being “harassed” wants to be “harassed” ?

  The answer is yes, absolutely, if the person being “harassed” is actually trying to demonstrate that harassment has been taking place.

  That said, is there any reason except for the cost of litigation that “jones” isn’t absolutely right about the following point: “If you think laws were broken maybe the camera man should try to press charges.”

  Shouldn’t there be more cases about this kind of thing? Of course, the question is, who’s going to pay for the litigation? Photographers are going to win most of the cases, but they’ll be pressured to settle and I assume that settlements aren’t large.

• 29 Voice of Reason // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:25 PM

  Some additional notes on this issue for “jones”. He said, “The cameraman would have been smarter to just ignore the guard and walk away.”

  I haven’t watched the video, because the following points are valid in general. If you’re dealing with an unarmed guard, and you’re willing to be injured, maybe. However, “jones”, what do you do in the situation that ALL BE DAMNED pointed out, where “the guard kept stepping in front of him blocking his path” ? You posted after ALL BE DAMNED brought this up, and you didn’t address this fairly important point.

  Additionally, if you happen to be dealing with an armed guard, simply walking away might be a very bad idea, assuming that the guard even moves out of your way. See the cases that I’ve listed on the Pataky thread.

• 30 jones // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:37 PM

  Voice – Watch the video, he doesn’t keep stepping in front of him that is why I didn’t address it.

  As far as the cost of litigation. I don’t think crime victims have to pay to prosecute the offender. If the camera man pressed criminal charges against the guard he wouldn’t have to pay for it.

• 31 Carlos Miller // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:53 PM

  I personally didn’t think it was that much of a problem when the guard walked up to him.

  The guy is hired to protect the courthouse, after all.

  If I was were a security guard at the courthouse, I would be curious too, and I would probably walk up to him and ask him what he is shooting.

  But I wouldn’t do it in the way he did. “Are you shooting my courthouse.”

  Obviously he was shooting the courthouse and that is not illegal. I would ask him if he is shooting a news story, a documentary or just for fun.

  I would feel the guy out by being nice to him. It’s so much more effective than coming across on a power trip where you barking laws that don’t even exist.

  And you can still determine whether he is a law-abiding citizen or up to no good if you have any common sense and instincts.

  But both of them were so clueless about the law. The National Security Act?

  It sounds good but it falls flat. And it makes them look like buffoons who have no idea what people can and can’t do.

  The guard stuck his foot in his mouth by threatening to arrest him.

  Notice how he stumbled when the videographer asked him on what charge.

  They’re not used to people questioning their authority, which is why guards and cops believe they can lie their way through their job.

  But because of the internet, people are getting smarter, they’re becoming more informed, so the old way of providing security and enforcing the law doesn’t work anymore.

  They’re going to have to start training these guards and officers from the get-go about these laws.

• 32 Voice of Reason // Apr 7, 2009 at 10:55 PM

  Note to “jones”:

  1. You said, “Watch the video, he doesn’t keep stepping in front of him that is why I didn’t address it.” ALL BE DAMNED apparently believes otherwise. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter who’s right, because some guards are going to block your exit. Therefore, I haven’t watched the video yet. If the question doesn’t come up with respect to this incident, it’ll come up at a later date.
  2. You said, “As far as the cost of litigation. I don’t think crime victims have to pay to prosecute the offender. If the camera man pressed criminal charges against the guard he wouldn’t have to pay for it.”

  Yes, that’s absolutely correct. I didn’t draw a distinction between civil and criminal cases. O.K.: Nobody’s likely to prosecute guards on criminal charges for this kind of thing, regardless of complaints, unless the guards severely injure or possibly kill people, and possibly not even then. Therefore, civil cases might be the only way to establish precedent, and civil cases do cost money. It’s quite possible that plaintiffs would “win the war”, in that they’d establish precedent, but “lose the battle” in that it might cost quite a bit. Settlements wouldn’t necessarily make up the difference. I have some experience with this kind of thing, though not in the photography arena.

  What’s out there on this? Is there an FAQ on this site regarding litigation that’s actually taken place?

• 33 jones // Apr 7, 2009 at 11:04 PM

  Voice – First you say “However, “jones”, what do you do in the situation that ALL BE DAMNED pointed out, where “the guard kept stepping in front of him blocking his path” ? You posted after ALL BE DAMNED brought this up, and you didn’t address this fairly important point.”

  Then you say “In my opinion, it doesn’t matter who’s right”

  Is it fairly important or doesn’t it matter?

• 34 Voice of Reason // Apr 7, 2009 at 11:21 PM

  Note to “jones”: In this case, the point is important, not what happened in the current incident. That’s because the problem could occur at any time. However, I give. I’ll watch the video shortly, unless I run into technical difficulties.

• 35 Voice of Reason // Apr 8, 2009 at 12:07 AM

  Note to “jones” and others: This isn’t my field. However, I’ve watched the video. The following notes are opinions, not fact. I’d prefer not to be bashed for opinions.

  In regard to blocking of paths, I believe that both points of view are correct. I didn’t feel that the photographer was being physically prevented from leaving, despite the fact that one of the guards appeared to say “Not yet” at one point. It would have been inadvisable for him to move away suddenly. However, if he’d tried to move towards the building, either quickly or slowly, I believe that serious problems might have occurred.

  If there’s a debate about whether or not the guards should have blocked motion towards the building, I don’t enough about the issue to comment.
  If there’s a debate about whether or not guards are allowed to detain photographers under these conditions, I’d say no. I believe that civil litigation would favor the photographer, in this case. In fact, the settlement would probably be more than enough to cover costs. It doesn’t matter if you like the photographer or you don’t like him. That’s not the point. It’s about his rights.

  If there’s a debate about whether or not the photographer is allowed to use his camera under these conditions, same answer. He’s got rights. At the same time, unless I missed something, asking questions and blocking forward motion are the only actions on the other side that appear to be an issue.

  As I’ve said, I don’t what the rules should be with respect to blocking forward motion. If there’s a debate about whether or not the guards are allowed to question the photographer at all, I’d side with Carlos Miller’s post 31 on the issue.

• 36 Voice of Reason // Apr 8, 2009 at 12:17 AM

  Odd issue: The word “know” disappeared from two places in my previous posting. That’s strange. Could swear that I typed it. Maybe not. I was trying to say that I don’t know enough about the rules to comment on the forward motion issue. The guards are clearly blocking forward motion. Detaining would be actionable in this case, but I don’t know about blocking forward motion.

• 37 Carlos Miller // Apr 8, 2009 at 12:19 AM

  VoR,

  You can still edit it within ten minutes.

• 38 jones // Apr 8, 2009 at 12:31 AM

  This post is generating way too much discussion because this was a non incident. The biggest issue I have with this is that some posters actually think the guards committed a crime by threatening to call the police. That is just absurd. If the guards physically tried to stop him then that would be a different story but to say threatening to call the police makes somebody a criminal is ridiculous.

• 39 Carlos Miller // Apr 8, 2009 at 12:33 AM

  Jones,

  It just makes them look unprofessional and unqualified when they don’t even know the laws regarding a very important part of their job.

• 40 Rizzin // Apr 8, 2009 at 12:43 AM

  jones, when I made my statement about cops and lying I was remembering (or at least thought I was remembering) it from earlier posts you have made. If I was wrong I accept that.

  Now on to post #27 you ask NYC if you have the same freedom of speech that he has.

  At this time I am going to have to say.. “That depends”
  Are you speaking in your official capacity as an uniformed agent of the state (Law Enforcement Officer)? Answer would be “No” you do not because the state can not make up things as it goes along it must follow established laws and protocols.
  Are you speaking out of uniform as a private citizen? Hmm Err… answer would be “Hell Yes”
  The tricky one, in uniform but not in an official capacity. Answer would be “Limited Freedoms”. To say “Do not photograph me” is a personal request and as such the listener is under no obligation to follow such an order. “Do not block the sidewalk” would fall under official order and listener is under obligation to follow, but how the average joe to tell the difference? Therein is the limit, representing yourself as being in “Official Order” mode while talking in “Request” mode should not be acceptable.
  In all of your examples, except where you were talking about photos of yourself, neither party is capable of acting as an agent of the state in an official capacity and therefore do not have the ability to ever confuse anybody as to if they have the backing of the law in their request. Do you see how that makes a difference?

  The SG’s give Doug and order to not film the courthouse building while representing the owner of that building, the government. Is that a (not so) polite request or an official order? There are no laws backing it up as a order so it HAS to be a request. However the SG’s are doing everything they can to make Doug believe it is an official order with legal backing. This is flat out WRONG, and I believe should be illegal.

• 41 Voice of Reason // Apr 8, 2009 at 12:50 AM

  Note to Carlos Miller: You said, “You can still edit it within ten minutes.”

  Thanks. I’m new at this. Not an issue for the current message, but for future reference, how is that done, or point me to an FAQ if you like.

• 42 Carlos Miller // Apr 8, 2009 at 12:55 AM

  When you post, there should be an edit button.

  It should say “click to edit.”

• 43 Voice of Reason // Apr 8, 2009 at 12:57 AM

  Thanks. I’ll look for it next time.

• 44 ALL BE DAMNED // Apr 8, 2009 at 2:26 AM

  Ok jones you say they wernt stepping in front of him blocking his path take a second look when he has the camera pointed down at 2:26 seconds
  They are intentionaly standing in his path.. when he turns to leave after asking if they where detaining him AGAIN the older gentalman steps in his path THAT IS DETAINMENT……so yes they did detain him for about 3 mins so they are breaking fedral laws by baring his path and detaining him for ANY amount of time ……..look up civil rights and fedral building the only thing that can stop you from taking pics of in or around fedral buildings is a court order
  …. Last post on this i promise

• 45 Douglas Hester // Apr 8, 2009 at 3:56 AM

  I’ve been following this debate with interest.

  I have some comments that should help clear things up:

  1. Voice of Reason is correct. I asked if I was being detained solely because the guard told me “not yet” when I asked if I was free to leave, and I am not sure if he is a sworn officer or not. Out of an abundance of caution, I stayed put and kept asking until he answered my question. Why risk a TASERing or worse?

  2. As to answering their other questions, I was a private citizen engaged in lawful behavior on public property. Would it have been more polite of me to answer their questions when they were barked at me? Of course. Was I required to by law? Certainly not. In fact, the 5th Amendment guarantees my right to not say anything at all. I was doing just fine and having a great morning all by myself; it was they who were interrupting me.

  3. I never felt that they were physically blocking me from leaving; I doubt that even they would be that dumb. Besides, if you notice, I didn’t leave until I was good and ready. I walked up and down that sidewalk 3 more times before I left (I didn’t tape the entire thing) without a peep from the guards. In fact, the two guards at the other end certainly didn’t feel threatened by my presence, judging by the one’s asking about the type of equipment I had.

  4. I have consulted with two attorneys that specialize in this sort of case, and both have assured me that I am on solid legal grounds. In fact, one lawyer pointed me to the following case, in which a person was detained even worse than I was for the exact same behavior. The Tacoma, WA Police Department was subsequently forced to give the photog a formal letter of apology:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMDW4Fszj2U

  5. jones is correct, in my opinion, that the guards were free to threaten me with calling the police all they want, and that’s no crime. However, I am free as well to ignore their empty threats all day long if I wish, and so I did. I do believe that I was unlawfully detained because of the guard’s “not yet” statement, though, which is the basis of the formal complaint I will be making very soon.

  It will be very interesting, should I return and film some more (Am I? not sure yet, honestly; i’ve got other things to do) just what the Phoenix police would charge me with should they be called. I can tell you this; if I am approached by them, I will behave in the exact same manner, no more and no less, which is all that is required of me. It’s up to the police to articulate reasonable suspicion that I’m committing a crime in order to justify a detainment, and I’m not going to help them out, however inadvertently or mistakenly. The best course of action is to say nothing and let them make a bad arrest if they’re going to; at that point, nothing I say is going to prevent a ride to jail anyway.

  By the way, I’m not a photographer. I can barely operate my entry-level digital camera. I am merely passionate about freedom and fairness issues, and Carlos’s reporting of the harassment of the other people in Phoenix began to irritate me. That’s really why I went down there – to see if the allegations were true.

  They are, as we can plainly see.

  I hope this helps to clear some things up.

• 46 Marco Perez // Apr 8, 2009 at 1:38 PM

  Hey guys, did not read all your comments but i just want to comment. The video man cam off a little strong. The guard that came up to him had the same professionally kind approach as the guard i met. And i was trespassing and had a light stand. that being said i was told i could take PICTURES from the side walk or on the property during operating hours but apparently video is taken a little more seriously. Regardless of the attitude what they said was still incorrect. They approached kindly but still had the intention of forbidding video. Kindness is of little use if your wrong. I personally would have said ‘yes’ to the reasonable question and then come off strong when they said that it was prohibited. That’s easy to say, though. I probably would have been nervous and just spouted my rights. Either way thanks Doug for checking into this.

• 47 travoll // Apr 8, 2009 at 4:28 PM

  @Douglas Hester while I understand that the harassment of photographers happens quite frequently I don’t think this is a good example. Your sole intention for going there was to document a confrontation. When security approached you became defensive before they did anything that would be considered harassment. It’s seems clear to me from their response that they were caught off guard (yes i see the irony off security bring caught off guard). They were not expecting you to be so confrontational with them. I would be interested in seeing what they would have said had you answered yes I am in a polite manner. The second set of security that you spoke to in a non-confrontational manner were very polite to you in return. What we as photographers need to remember is that most of these guys are just doing there job. Of course you are going to come across those few that got picked on too much in school and are trying to get even but going to a building with the intention of video taping a confrontation is not helping the cause. It is only making it worse.

• 48 Kitty Antonik Wakfer // Apr 9, 2009 at 10:11 PM

  The discussion here is missing some very important points and lacking in definitions, both of which foster poor communication, a negative emotional atmosphere and failure for most to grasp the foundational principles. The following are the most obvious:

  Property – who is the owner of the property on which a viewer/photographer is located? And has permission been granted by the owner to the viewer/photographer to be there doing what s/he is doing? With the existence of government owned property the principle becomes distorted, since in fact taxpayers are the owning group. (I did not see that the taker of the video tape left the city government owned sidewalk and entered onto the federal court property.) In a proper society – one in which only privately owned or non-owned property exists (no “Commons), the presence of a person on owned property and what s/he would not be allowed to do would be up to the owner, and agreement prior to entering would be the practice. This would be the case of egress property too – roads and sidewalks being a common type now. Those who did not like some restriction of use by the property owner(s) would seek other locations for their activity, and the limitations of one property owner would provide incentive for other owners of the same or similar types to be more lenient and thereby obtain new clientele. Continuing to restrict ideas to inside the current government model society is a great limitation.

  Harassment – this word means different things to different people and is often used without clarification. It would be better to simply state what a person did or said, rather than to label that action/statement as “harassment”. S/he stated that person “X” was violating the law, “You’re not supposed to videotape any federal court building.” [I]f I catch you videotaping the building again you will be arrested by the Phoenix Police Department.” I would classify these as typical government enforcement agent verbiage, often done to see if the other person can be incited to a violent action that is an immediate cause for them to react physically – and with all the legalized force they have at hand.

  While some would make a distinction between law enforcement agents and federal/state guards of government property, they are the same in principle. The only practical difference is in the type of weapons they are authorized to carry with which to carry out their directives. I encourage that everyone keep in mind that while Congress in the US passes federal laws (state legislators for state laws), the enforcing is done by individual agents in the executive branch department given that authority by Congress (or the State Legislature of the individual state). Without the enforcing agents, the Laws/Mandates/Edicts are meaningless! This is a universal truism anywhere in the world. The enforcers are the key! Negative Social Preferencing by large numbers of people is the best solution for gradually eliminating the model of society as ruler/ruled – http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html Appropriating, assimilating, thinking over, comprehending and integrating (more than simply understanding and accepting) the principles upon which it lies will promote the usage of Social Preferencing – the ultimate effector of social order.

• 49 holly // Apr 22, 2009 at 1:57 PM

  @kitty: a courthouse is public property. public property defined as owned by the government.

Leave a Comment

Name

Mail

Website