New York Moves To Ban Public Filming And Photography

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Leo/FightNWO-Resisting World Government
Date: Jun 29, 2007 3:44 PM





New York Moves To Ban Public Filming And Photography
Broad rules do not exempt amateur photographers, independent reporters and filmmakers

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, June 29, 2007

With vague reasoning and little explanation, moves are afoot in the city of New York to stamp out all forms of filming in public, be it by professional television crews, protestors or simply by tourists on sightseeing trips.

Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks, reports the New York Times.
​

Though the Mayor’s Office of Film has said that the new rules are not aimed at families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers, the enforcement would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in public for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance. The same ruling would also apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.
​

Even people simply holding cameras could be subject to the rules, the ACLU says.

The ACLU has pointed out that there is no distinction in the wording of the rules that excludes non professionals and it would be down to the discretion of the police as to whom to enforce the rules upon.
​

Given that camera crews are routinely threatened with arrest for filming peaceful demonstrations and the fact that cops have been caught stealing protestor's cameras in the past, the new ruling does not bode well for photographers and independent reporters.
​

Filming in public is a right every American citizen has under the first and fourth amendments, which is why the cops in the cases above had to steal the camera and the footage, because there was no legal basis to seize it.
​

We have even seen police seize cameras and film from innocent people under bogus charges of "wiretapping". Earlier this month a man was charged in Carlisle, Pennsylvania with filming police officers during a routine traffic stop and faces up to seven years in prison. Last year a North Middleton Twp. man was charged in a street racing case that involved a wiretapping charge. Police claimed the man ordered associates to tape police breaking up an illegal race after officers told him to turn off their cameras. Furthermore, last month a 48-year-old man from Dover, New Hampshire was arrested for "wiretapping" for allegedly recording police while they were investigating him for driving while intoxicated.

​

The charge is invalid because it flouts privacy laws. Under the fourth amendment the expectation of privacy is not reasonable at such public places as automobile thoroughfares.

In other words filming on a public highway cannot be classed as an invasion of privacy.

Furthermore, the expectation of privacy is not reasonable if there exists a vantage point from which anyone, not just a police officer, can see or hear what is going on.

With the greater availability of camera technology there have been numerous incidents in recent years where the heavy handed police actions have importantly been caught on camera. Just yesterday we covered a story out of Hot Springs where a cop was caught on film choking out kids merely for skateboarding down the street. Without such evidence the cop might not have been placed on leave and an investigation may not have taken place.
​

While the Department of Homeland security is throwing money at cities and towns to put cameras everywhere to film the public, and police routinely film public gatherings, the right of citizens to film and photograph in the streets is under direct attack.
​

In addition, the Mayor of New York is Michael Bloomberg, who owns one of the biggest media outlets in the country. This move also therefore represents a direct conflict of interest on behalf of the mayor's office.
​

It seems that filming and photographing is now deemed to be a threat per se. Pick from any number of stories archived at www.freedomtophotograph.com for example.

• In Seattle, police banned a photography student from a public park. He was taking photographs of a bridge for a homework assignment. The officers who ban him from the park do so without the knowledge of park officials and have no authority to do so.
• In Texas a man was first threatened by neighbors and then reportedly accosted and sprayed with pepper spray by police. He was walking around his neighborhood, filming with his new video camera.
• In New York, National Press Photographers Association members staged a protest in the New York subway system to bring attention to a proposed law to ban photography in the subway system.
• In Philadelphia a magazine photographer was detained and questioned after a parade for taking architectural shots while waiting for a subway train.
• In Harrisburg, PA a man was swarmed by 8 Police and accused of being a member of Al-Qaeda after shooting pictures of his new car under a bridge.

Such moves represent an attack on freedom of the press, liberty in general and the flow of information. They set a precedent for a national ruling to crack down on documentation of important events and incidents and give police the power to selectively enforce unconstitutional measures to restrict freedom.

 

Wow...This is insane. Its positively absurd.

If this little law ever comes to be, I think we should get a very large group of people together, go to New York, and walk around taking pictures of stuff and filming crap xD

 

Thank you for your reporting of this important information for our review & consideration.

Some scholars argue that it has become increasingly apparent that all americans should in their best interests undertake some law study.

It may appear to those that are risk adverse,as becoming increasingly inadvisable to venture forth from the security of one's home?

 

This looks, IMO, like a way to hide the crimes that the NYPD is know to commit.
Now it will be illegal to capture evidence of the police harassing peaceful protesters, and allowing to to use this 'law' to harass anyone else they don't like.

 

They don't want people with cameras capturing footage of people being slammed into the pavement by the NYPD.... but beyond that, it's simply more big-brother control and just another incremental step toward complete totalitarianism.

Should it be any surprise that Michael Bloomberg was just recently on the cover of TIME with Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was flaunting a Nazi belt buckle?

 

But he wasn't flaunting a Nazi belt buckle. Why do you constantly lie?

 

If people think I am lying, they can go and look for themselves. He is wearing the Nazi SS deaths head belt buckle.

 

So it had swasticas all over it then? No. Just another Rat lie.

 

That would seem to be the motivation for such a law. I mean, in AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVE THIS CAN NOT HAPPEN!

Matt, can you find and post video of Adolf, I mean, er, Arnold with the SS belt buckle? I would love to see that!

Either way, whether he is boldly donning an article of Nazi paraphernalia or not, it appears that we may have to push back soon to avoid totalitarian abuses.

Peace Love and Power to the People!

 

Nevermind Matt, here is the cover:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070625,00.html

I'm sorry, but I can't make out the belt buckle. Can anyone here enlarge it?

 

Why the hell does every single link in that article go to Myspace... is this how infowars gets their information?

 

I think what is happening with this ruling is an attempt by the city government to make money. If dumb Joe Blow is willing to pay them to photograph their city why give it away for free?

As to the Governator, it's a deathhead buckle, it can't actually be attributed to the SS or Nazis anymore than it can be attributed to Johnny Depp, or bikers. He showed bad judgement in showing it off on the cover, and perhaps he's confident enough to think he can do tasteless things and continue to get away with them. But when his republican friends are voted out of office he may be more contrite. But then again the article is all about who needs Washington.

 

I took that information from a myspace bulletin. We network information that is not readily available through the propaganda mouthpieces commonly known as the mainstream media. You may find some of it interesting and/or informative.

 

Pepik doesn't find anything interesting or informative.

 

One of the great quotes of my governator:

And my state elected him in a special election and then relected him...hard to believe.

 

Bollocks, most of the links were probably to corporate media. One of them is a NY Times link.

Please, if you are going to put on a pretentious act about your "information network" don't copy and paste infowars, which is a complete joke.

 

How much money will they make ?
well being the permit is FREE, and you can download it an send it back via email. uh go ahead and send em your $ JOE.
IF anything this will only cost the city money.http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/pdf/stillpermit.pdf
there, i've done my daily public service.

 

If you are postive sure of this send us a link to the permit online. I think as a public service it should be posted here.

 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/080107_proposed_permit_rules.shtml

.

 

That's not a permit form those are the proposed rules, what is the actual legal status?