By Carlos Miller
After getting harassed and threatened by a security guard for photographing a federal building in Madison, Wisconsin last month, Josh Zytkiewicz began demanding answers.
The Photography is Not a Crime reader began firing off letters to his sentators and a couple of congresswomen as well as to several judges.
These are the questions he asked:
First, why was I even approached? Everything I saw and photographed that day is visible from the public sidewalk that surrounds the courthouse. Is it the policy of the federal government, this particular building, or an overzealous guard to approach every photographer?
Second, why is a federal employee telling me I cannot take pictures of the building because of “security procedures”? The only federal laws that I know of that actually prohibit photography relate to classified items on military bases and facilities that have nuclear material under the control of the US Department of Energy. Even the GSA’s own rules which are posted in the lobby of the courthouse Title 41 CFR 102-74.420 doesn’t prohibit photography but requires the permission of whichever federal agency is concerned. Also 41 CFR 102-74.420 only apply to those persons “in or on Federal property”.
Third, why was I threatened at the end of our conversation? And I do consider it a threat when I’m told the police will be called because I’m doing something that someone doesn’t like. If I was breaking a law why wasn’t I held, prevented from leaving until the police arrived?
Fourth, is the Robert W. Kastenmeier United States Courthouse in Madison, Wisconsin a more sensitive and potentially threatened location than the Wisconsin Capitol building? After all I was allowed to move freely throughout the Capitol, but was stopped and questioned merely for being outside of the courthouse.
So far, he has received three responses.
The first response came from Senator Herb Kohl, who informed Zytkiewicz that although there was nothing he could do to address his concerns, he had “taken the liberty” of forwarding the letter to the Western District Court staff and asked that they respond to the letter.
The second response came from District Judge Barbara Crabb who confirmed that photographing this particular federal buildings is legal, but that “you or anyone else who takes pictures of the building can expect to be asked politely by a court security officer about what you are doing.” She also threw in that old line about how 9/11 changing everything.
The third response came from Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, who informed Zytkiewicz that she faxed a letter on his behalf to General Services Administration, which she describes as the federal “agency which establishes policy for, and provides management of, government property.”
Popularity: 2% [?]
13 responses so far ↓
1 mepsipax // Nov 23, 2009 at 3:04 PM
And still, nothing will happen.
2 MacK // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I agree that if anything not much will happen, but at least there is the beginning of a paper trail that will prevent the “I was not informed of the situation” response.
3 Josh Zytkiewicz // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Carlos, about 3 hours before you posted this I got a call from a reporter at my local weekly paper. He’s planning to write a story about my experience.
4 Carlos Miller // Nov 23, 2009 at 4:35 PM
That’s great, Josh. Let me know when the story comes out so I can post it here.
5 xdamousex // Nov 23, 2009 at 5:24 PM
This post contains more punts than a Redskins game.
6 Calladus // Nov 23, 2009 at 7:49 PM
I guess the buck didn’t stop there. Or anywhere.
7 Workingindust // Nov 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM
Can anybody say ‘getting the run around’ or ‘passing the buck’?
8 SSJIndy // Nov 24, 2009 at 9:30 AM
I wonder how security would react to a person sketching these places on an artist’s pad? After all, they’d be there for an extended period of time, during which they could also observe and note the movements of security personnel and vehicles.
Would they pay particular attention to someone sketching from right-to-left as it might indicate a person with Arabic influences?
9 Josh Zytkiewicz // Dec 3, 2009 at 10:32 PM
An article about my experience was published in this weeks issue of Isthmus, a weekly paper in Madison, WI
http://www.isthmus.com/isthmus/article.php?article=27584
and my take on it:
http://blog.monkeymetal.com/2009/12/story-in-the-isthmus/
10 John Howard // Dec 5, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Perhaps a workable counter theory to these guys would be:
“Hey, what are you doing?”
“I’m keeping terrorists away.”
“What? Stop taking pictures. It is not allowed here.”
“I can’t do that. As long as I keep photographing this building, it will keep chasing the terrorists away. ”
“What are talking about?”
“Have there been any terrorists attacks while I’ve been here? No. See? It works.”
11 rexanwalt // Jan 7, 2010 at 8:28 PM
I’ve been to the courthouse in Madison, which looks a lot like a large red and blue mailbox. When I asked a now retired FBI agent if all the federal courthouses now had to be blue (as the one in Milwaukee is as well), he told me, “No, they just all have to be ugly.”
During my college years I spent my junior year at the Free University in West Berlin. During a visit in East Berlin, I started to photograph a bombed out building which had trees growing in the interior and through some of the windows. Up came a plainclothes secret police officer who demanded to see my passport, and then advised me it was forbidden to photograph the building. I thought when I got home to Wisconsin, such fascist nonsense was behind me. Guess I was wrong.
12 Jon // May 1, 2010 at 2:10 AM
I really hate the line “9/11 changed everything.”
The only thing that changed that day is the realization that people really hate our government and us outside of our limited perceptions. They hated us previous to that day, and that has remained constant since as well. The only thing that changed is that they had some success. And the hysteria and paranoia created by that success makes them even more succesfull then just killing a few hundred people. We as a people and the government have played into the hands of the conspirators of the acts of 9/11. I have stated in the past, that I would rather die at the hands of a terrorist attack then to live without the freedoms I have been taught that we have in this country. And I am still willing to do such to this date. Damn public safety if it means that we have to give up any freedoms in this society. I am willing to sacrifice my life for these freedoms.
Freedom has never been free. Many have died so we can have it. Many are fighting today because they believe in it, in Afghanistan and locally. There is, and always will be a price for our freedoms, and it will never be measured in Dollars or Euros.
13 Rusty Carr // May 1, 2010 at 2:35 AM
Jon wrote: “We as a people and the government have played into the hands of the conspirators of the acts of 9/11.”
Now THERE’S a crock of shit I’ve WAY too many damned times already. Try to get it through your thick liberal skull, Jon, WE are not responsible for what those horrid, ugly bastards did to us. Shit, if it was not for the oil the west buys from the mid-east those turds would still be hopping from oasis to oasis on their camels and spending their nights picking each other clean of sand fleas! Can they appreciate what we’ve done for them? Not one damned bit. They see fit to envoke the name of their child-molester prophet to justify killing our children, women and old people. They didn’t have the balls to say right up front “We hate you and we’re coming after you.” (Shades of Pearl Harbor, 1941). No Jon, you can take that “Oh, it’s all our fault” idiocy and stick it right up your backside. We’re not the bad guys here and I’ll stand up and challenge you every time you try to assert it.
Leave a Comment