Re: The Bridge Run, the Police and our Hyper Sensitive Cultu
WOW! As I find is usually the case, some investigation regards the "law" will be an eye opening experience.
In the wake of all this discussion I did some searching and turned up the linked article. I will be shocked if anyone who's been posting herein reads it all and then suggests they knew all this (if you did, shame on you for not sharing
).
Caveat one - this is only one of many articles that turned up when I Googled "photography first amendment". I have not read them all (I read four). I picked this one because these folks are all about the first amendment.
Caveat two - this is about photography in general which I'm pretty sure only encompasses hand held cameras. Aerial photography via a remote controlled aircraft is pretty certain to open a whole new can of worms even though it should ultimately boil down to the same thing.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment
This is a long article, and it is somewhat dated (last updated April, 2012). I read it all. However, from the website's owner's stated purpose and position, I suspect if there had been any significant changes, they would be all over them.
It would be nice if they had a summary but I suspect their charge means sticking to the facts, all the facts ... and summarizing could introduce their opinions.
A few of my observations:
"No Supreme Court decisions directly address a photographer’s First Amendment rights." The importance of this statement to me is that all those comments you hear about a constitutional right to take photographs are sort of "transient" in that they're based on interpretations of the Supreme Court's related rulings, and the findings of many lower courts. The first amendment does not mention photography (it didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was adopted) so the amendment's applicability to photography comes only through the decisions of the courts, and the ultimate court hasn't directly ruled on it (though presumably they've let lower court decisions stand - sort of a ruling I guess, unless none were ever brought to them).
If you believe that personal use photography in public places is protected by the first amendment, you are likely mistaken (as was I). In 1995 the Supreme Court ruled “To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.” Several cases are presented where courts found that taking pictures for your own use do not qualify under these requirements. If you're ever challenged, you'd better have a believeable message (of public interest) portrayed in your photos and a public audience (wonder if Flickr would count). Oh, and a court will have to decide if youve met those requirements.
If you believe that government restrictions on the time, place, and manner of photography restrictions are unconstitutional, you
may be wrong - the answer seems to be "it depends". And, you guessed it, it gets decided after the fact by a court. The examples referenced were crime and accident scenes. The only guidance I could see was if the general public is excluded, so are the photographers (professionals included).
If you believe that you have a right to photograph police activity ... you might be right, or you might be wrong. It really seems to depend on which Federal Circuit Court's jurisdiction you're in, because their rulings are across the board. In the 1st, 11th, and maybe 9th Circuit Courts, you're covered. In a the 9th, it's a solid "maybe". In the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, such a right "has not been established". Evidently in the other Circuit Courts (there are 11 in total) no case testing these waters has come to pass. Apparently the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue - that's really surprising.
The article goes on to define "public spaces". There are three kinds, traditional - streets, sidewalks, parks, etc.; limited - public property which the state has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity but is not required to open nor to keep open (no examples given); and non-public - public property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication (didn't give examples, maybe a records warehouse, military base, ??). As the public is allowed in the first two, so are photographers.
Lastly there's a long piece on photography of government buildings and mass transit locations. I must admit I was somewhat glazing over by this point but my sense was that for: Buildings - in the past they were largely viewed as off limits but that position has been changing (some what forced by court decisions), but not everyone at ground level seems to be getting the word. If you plan on photographing government buildings I'd do some homework with the agencies referred to therein and the talk to the locals first. Mass transit - there are examples given of photographers being accosted in train terminals, and ultimately vindicated. On the flip side, the photography in airport terminals (especially around TSA stations) is still somewhat questionable as the Supreme Court has ruled that they don't satisfy the standards the court has set for identifying public forums.
The underlying current through all of this article is that you do have to stand up for your rights. But if you do so in an educated, non-confrontational manner you can save yourself a lot of hassle.
I absolutely encourage you to not take my word for any of this. If you doubt any of it, read it for yourself. Do your own research. Assure/convince yourself. Just be sure you question your sources as well.
My main take away is that when anyone tells you something is black and white relative to a complicated legal issue, take it with a grain of salt, do some research, and make your opinion an educated one.
