Ny times photog arrested

Helen, you are now in even more esteemed company. It will be interesting to see how a judge reacts to professional journalist on the job with credentials getting collared.
 
no surprising, nyc became a police state since 911, every street corner you look, you will find a cop. started from kerik, now kelly, more interested in servicing the mayor than servicing the public.
 
It is odd that notwithstanding all the negative press police departments have been getting over this issue, that these officers had the abysmal stupidity, not only to violate the photographer's free speech rights, but to make it into a street brawl as well. I predict that when the Times lawyers get their hands on this, these officers will be toast.

Why doesn't the FBI step in when such things happen? Isn't this a violation of federal law?
 
thanks for the link, Rob. Sadly this is not a problem confined to the US. It will probably take a string of well publicised, successful lawsuits with heavy financial penalties for the message to work its way through the ranks of public and private enforcement officers and bureaucracies. Media organisations have the resources to pursue that, while individual citizens often do not. Even media organisations may be reluctant to take on expensive cases when revenues are under increasing pressure.
Sad days for democracy.
 
mervynyan said:
no surprising, nyc became a police state since 911, every street corner you look, you will find a cop. started from kerik, now kelly, more interested in servicing the mayor than servicing the public.
Click to expand...

I thought servicing is what a stallion does to a mare - maybe you have it right! :D
 
If we're just going by the OP's linked article, we only have a 'he said - they said' report. Not very factual stuff yet. Might want to wait awhile before we start jumping on anyone here. Just a thought.
 
The problem with harassment like this is that if a case does indeed make it up the chain of Federal courts the rights of concerned citizens and journalists, everyone really, will not be made stronger, they will only be specified and further categorized. The only thing that can be done is to educate law enforcement better but not to push too hard lest the government decide that credentialed journalists have more rights of freedom of the press than ordinary citizens.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
The problem with harassment like this is that if a case does indeed make it up the chain of Federal courts the rights of concerned citizens and journalists, everyone really, will not be made stronger, they will only be specified and further categorized. The only thing that can be done is to educate law enforcement better but not to push too hard lest the government decide that credentialed journalists have more rights of freedom of the press than ordinary citizens.
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...
I bet the differ, credentialed journalists may have bigger mouthpiece, but they certainly don't have more civil rights than average citizens. ever since tsa and dhs established, more places we couldn't shoot, then there is no trespassing in semi private and public places. That's one reason I don't do large format as often as years ago. I use to shoot 42nd subway platform in large format at night time when it was empty, now need good reason and permission and payment, personal enjoyment doesn't count as good reason.
 
I'm not saying that journalists have different rights than ordinary citizens, nor do i believe they should.
I'm saying that once there is a Federal differentiation between those with and without formal credentials then our First Amendment rights are gone.
The government will not strengthen the rights of the citizens, they will only erode them further.

Phil Forrest
 
Journalists certainly shouldn't have more rights than the rest of the citizenry. On the other hand, in the US and some other places, they do have an almost sacred responsibility to report to the world what they see and that ought to grant them access to things it would be impractical for all the rest of us to view on our own. They are supposed to be our eyes and ears.

In any case, the Times does have a significant legal department and expensive outside counsel as well as a commitment to protecting that sacred trust with public (see some of Bill Keller's recent writings, for example, on the potential chilling effect on proposed legislation to tamp down "leaks" by officials). Also, the Times has an above average track record in litigating major First Amendment cases (the Pentagon Papers case being a prime example).

So, while it's certainly not a matter of the Times having more rights, but that it other other journalistic enterprises, investigating and reporting on behalf of the public, ought to have bigger mouths filled with more teeth. Robert Stolarik doesn't and should not have more rights than our own Helen Hill; but he sure does have, through his employer, a lot more ability to fight back. If the Times wins, we all win.

I don't have a problem with the notion that a man or woman with a press pass ought to be able to access places I can't personally access. In fact, I think it's critical (picture all 300 million of us standing backstage at the upcoming political conventions; actually, maybe that's not such a bad idea). That said, I don't want to be arrested for taking a picture on the subway.

As for asking for a badge number, doesn't the officer have to put that on the summons or other paperwork? Isn't that also part of the transparency we all ought to expect? I can't imagine that they could hide that from someone they arrest; it is part of the public record after all.

Journalists shouldn't prevent the police from doing their jobs, but the equation ought to be reciprocal. While I can imagine a situation where a cop could rightly say to photographer, "you need to step away so I can do my job and protect public safety," this doesn't seem like a scenario where that was necessary.

Bottom line for me is that I would not want to live in a society that lacked either a professional police force or professional journalists (emphasis on professionalism in both cases). When the balance between them gets out of kilter, trouble usually ensues. Just my two cents.
 
We are all so easy to take the side of the photog, without having been there and seen what really happened. Who knows how he was behaving? Striking an officer in the face with his camera? Accidental or not, how would you react if you were the cop, faced with an angry mob?
 
Griffin said:
We are all so easy to take the side of the photog, without having been there and seen what really happened. Who knows how he was behaving? Striking an officer in the face with his camera? Accidental or not, how would you react if you were the cop, faced with an angry mob?
Click to expand...

... I imagine there's a coppers' forum somewhere taking a much more balanced view, would you think? ... personally I think it's the chap with the gun and badge who is paid from the public purse that should be first to explain their actions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top