Well, I'm speaking philosophically here, the US constitution doesn't
grant rights, it protects existing rights. The original theory came
from England. You'd think they'd still operate under the same
principals. I find it slightly amazing that anyone would allow their
government to operate on the opposite theory if a gun wasn't explicitly
pointed at them at all times.
Adam Maas wrote:
Unfortunately, this is the UK, not the US or Canada with their
explicit Freedom of the Press protections that also cover amateurs. As
Cotty indicates, Journalists are actually licensed in the UK, meaning
that 'Legitimate' is a valid description.
-Adam
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Putting on my philosophers hat, in answer to your question, yes the
professionals and the amateurs have the same rights to record the scene.
So to take that to the practical, under any rational understanding, of those
rights the police have no legitimate power granted to them to keep the
bystanders or News photographers from recording the scene. There maybe
legitimate exceptions. National security may or may not be one of them,
however if that isn't involved then to limit the amateurs is a violation of
their rights. Of course the Police have the power to do anything they want
that the Citizens will let them get away with, but that's a different story.
Your use of "legitimate" is a clue to your problem, it presupposes that
those without credentials from a "news" organization are illegitimate and
there is the wedge that allows petty tyrants to begin to erode the rights of
all. Before long the tyrants aren't so petty...
Cotty wrote:
On 4/10/08, ann sanfedele, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think there has been lots more mischief created by the ease with which
one can use a cell
phone to clandestinely photo strangers on the street and blast them to
the world on the web.
Ann raises a very topical point here - one that still has plenty of
mileage to run - and will become more prevalent in the near future.
There are plenty of reports from around the world of situations where
passers-by to an incident who have pulled out their camera-phones and
snapped some pics or recorded video, have subsequently had them
confiscated by police who claim that there may be evidence relevant to
[the] investigation of said incident.
This raises important civil liberty issues that have yet to make it to
court (in the UK) in a defining situation.
Viz: an air ambulance lands in a town centre where an injured man is
stretchered onto it, the paramedics still working on him with CPR etc. A
couple of dozen bystanders are caught nearby between the police cordon
and a building, effectively in 'no-man's land' for the duration of the
helicopter stay, only about 20 minutes or so. During the patient
evacuation, police announce that anyone caught using phones to picture
the scene will have them confiscated - and indeed several are seized.
Yet two stills photographers and a video news cameraman nearby continue
to record the scene. One police officer attempts to stop one stills
photographer from photographing, and a conversation ensues which results
in the officer from backing down and concentrating on the crowd.
This scenario actually happened recently in the UK, and I was the video
news cameraman in this case.
My point is that the time will come when the police will not back down
and censure of legitimate newsgathering operations will result. I
suspect it will proceed to court for a legal definition to be made that
will then inform future police powers (in the UK in this case).
At what stage do 'legitimate newsgathering operations' merge with
'bystanders snapping on phones' - are the two actually the same? Is
there a distinction? Do police actually have authority to seize
recording devices by claiming they may contain evidence central to an
ongoing investigation? If so - does that extend to professional
newsgathering organisations? The answer is - it can.
In the UK, professional newsgathering organisations (defined by UK
standards as a bone fide journalist, licensed by the Association of
Chief Police Officers and provided with a photo-ID card for proof)
cannot be made to hand over recording devices or their recordings
without a court order overseen by a judge. The police could not legally
have demanded my camera tape or camera, even though they possibly may
have arrested me for a public order offense if I had refused any such
demands. My employer's legal department have defined protocols in this
situation - no material is ever to be handed to police in such cases -
even if arrest will be the result.
For anyone else, you're at the mercy of the police! Obviously your
mileage may vary by country.
I have as yet to encounter a situation whereby I m off duty but witness
an incident and record it on my own camera-phone.........
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com
_____________________________
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
--Al Capone.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
--Al Capone.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
