NYCLU sues NYC for Freedom to Photograph

<p>

 

<a

href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/biology/faculty/fernandez/FernandezLabWebsite/people/Arun_Wiita.html">Arun

Wiita</a>, a harmless MD/PhD student at Columbia, had planned to build a Web

site showing New York City's 468 subway stations. This attracted the attention

of New York's finest, who arrested him in July. Yesterday the New York Civil

Liberties Union (local affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union) filed a

lawsuit against the police department on Wiita's behalf.

 

</p>

 

<p>

More: <a

href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?storyID=2007-12-06T233401Z_01_N06250916_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-RIGHTS-PHOTO.xml">Reuters</a>

and <a href="http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/28537">Columbia Spectator</a>.

</p>

What may be "innocent activity" at the time, can be used for less innocent purpose by them or others later.

 

There area always 2 sides of any story, and one should not place them all in one bsaket. The police must do their job, and seems they do it.

 

The explosion of digital photography and behavior of so called "photographers" are of growing concerns to many citizens, and sometimes in becomes just annoying, or at times a calamity.

 

ACLU got detracted from their real objectives many times in the passed and was barking on the wrong tree before.

Frank, that reasoning can be extended to the point of banning all street photography. Anything and everything can be used for "less innocent" purposes. If someone wants to have a map of the subway stations, they can go get one for free. Here in Atlanta, the train maps are <a href=http://www.itsmarta.com/maps/viewer.asp>online</a> - and there's no problem here. <p/>How far do we have to go before we all can feel safe from terrorism? Is this living our lives "normally" like we were told after 9/11? It doesn't seem so to me.

if aclu starts enough lawsuits and some MAY be frivolus,

eventually the government will go broke

or they will have to let murderers, rapists, and bank ro\bbers go free because there is no money left. either for prosicutions or to keep violent crominal;s in jail.

this, indeed, may be the hidden agenda of the aclu.

 

It reminds me of the NY transit system. they increase the fares because of fewer people usin the transit system and the eventiual result could be ONE BUS RIDER that pays $10,000.00 to go one block.

Walter, maybe the actual result will be to stop the governments form passing and enforcing laws which are against the Constitution, the highest law of the land. If that costs the government money so be it. The goal of the ACLU is not to bankrupt the state, but simply to protect the rights of all citizens of this land, even those without enough money to protect themselves.

 

Nothing I have seen from the ACLU indicates they want murderers and rapists to go free. They do however want to ensure they get a fair trial as required under the law.

 

Laws banning photography in public places will not make you safer. If I can think of several different ways to get around the ban without being caught I am sure a terrorist can as well.

Remember folks: Terrorist or others don't post their pictures on a web page or take them with the appropriate gear. They do it surreptously. Think Minox, Cold War, Spies, etc. Not John Q. Public with his Nikon...

 

And siding on the side of fear is stupid.

do youn really think anyone in the past 100 years is taking the US Constitution seriously?

it should be the highest law in the land,

but politicians and especially beurocrats ignore or run around the constitution all the time.

this it deplorable.

the aclu is the darling or the socialists and rearely if ever seruiously supports what the founding fathers intended.

By golly, those ACLU people must be a bunch of reds all right. I mean, who else would defend the Ku Klux Klan against infringement of their civil liberties?

 

Those subway entrance photos sure do pose an obvious threat to the public safety, too. Who knows what evil use they might be put to? I mean it's not like someone planning to bomb the place could just walk by with their phone camera, is it? With a name like that, the graduate student is obviously un-American.

 

It's outrageous that somebody is actually trying to defend constitutional rights--I mean, are we not in a state of emergency? How frivolous can you be?

Should the "thought" police next venture into bookstores to cart off any and all books for tourists? And then on towards the public library and remove all reference books on anything related to engineering and history in New York City?

 

 

 

History is the good, the bad, and the ugly: once a image is on record *someplace,* it is pure heck trying to manage future image taking.

Was he arrested because of the terrorism angle? If so, I wonder if he would have been arrested if he had been carrying a tape recorder. Another point, if a bomb had been detonated, would he have been arrested if his pictures captured the culprits trying to get away, or hailed as a hero. In the UK London bombings a few years back, the police actively sought the assistance anyone who may of taken pictures, to help them find the culprits. The sad fact is, we now live in a world where a generation of social pictures and stories will be lost because of the easy target of photography, if your not a terrorist, your a pervert. If your not a pervert, your a paedophile. It must be true.

Well instead of going broke maybe the US Government will have to make sure that its employees and those of cities and states actually understand the laws they are meant to enforce. Photography is not a crime and you should not wander through life stopping people doing things because there's a possible but unlikely nefarious end purpose a step or two beyond. You may as well stop people using weedkiller because it can be used to make bombs or driving a car because it may enable people to carry out crime or to avoid arrest.

 

I disagree with Frank Skomial's point of view in entirety and IMO we should not be excusing the behaviour of law officers, rangers, security guards, transport police etc who make up law to suit themselves and then use the threat of terrorism to excuse their errors; and I don't agree that we should accept reductions in our freedoms that they may determine arbitrarily as a price to pay to avoid terror.

 

But until these people are held personally responsible for their behaviour then nothing much is going to change here. Maybe the faint possibility that wrongful arrests/harassment awards may stretch towards bankrupting a city is a step on the way to those responsible recognising that they have to lay off these bets onto the people causing the problem - those who choose to make it up as they go along.

Well, it's good the NYCLU sued. Else there'd be no one to check on the NYPD.

 

Taking photos-- for Christ's sake! You wanna get arrested for that? You wanna do jail time for that?

 

This is not a frivolous lawsuit about begging being a form of free expression.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve

neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

 

I will say this I am on a first name basis with the many cops, and I have the greatest

respect for them, I could not do their job.

But, Lets be blunt here, if taking photos of such a public place is security risk then shoot

the offender in the head and be done with it. Of course has anyone done a search on the

web for New York Subway? I found photos, maps and train schedules supplied by city of

New York. Thank Raijen that the Terrorist have not discovered google earth. We all be

done for.

 

Lets say this guy was a Terrorist out of "World Police" did police do what was right? By

most of the cops I know, they would say no. Far better to gather intel on him such

checking a car license plate or simply asking to see his ID. And passing that info on, so

the whole terrorist cell could be taken down.

 

At best this is a gross example of incompetence, at worst a case on racism that could be

through the force. I tend to believe it is incompetence. To coin a phrase the officers

involved should be terminated with extreme prejudice.

 

One more thing the terrorist that were involved in 9/11 came from the middle east, not

India. Maybe the cops involved need better training and to learn about Google Earth.

 

Of course it could be worse, we all saw why bobbies should not be allowed to carry guns

after the British rail bombings.

They were issued guns and sent out to stop terrorists. What they did do was shot a young

unarmed Brazilian over 5 times in the head for wearing a hooded shirt and having brown

skin. He had nothing to do with the bombings.

This is just one of many pending law suits against NYC Police. The National Press Photographer's Organization has cited numerous police abuses, photographers being harassed, being told they can not photograph in public places, having to turn over film or delete images, to being arrested for such things as Disorderly Conduct or Obstructing .. it is getting tough to be a journalist and equally tough to be a tourist since 911.

 

When the people of New York City realize that protecting freedom of speech is as important as minimizing the liability of law suits perhaps a balance will be struck. Unfortunately for police they have a love-hate relationship with press photographers/journalists that was made worse now that just about everyone has a cell-phone camera and the public is frequently documenting police abuses.

 

In a free democratic society, few reasons withstand the litmus test of time in terms of visually documenting public activities in places open to the public .. in which no expectation of privacy exists .. France, a socialist government has much stronger regulation of these activities .. and I fear more and more members of the EU will adopt France's paradigm .. but Americans as a group .. have traditionally balked at any extended government intervention in such matters, 911 notwithstanding .. Americans like their freedom and traditionally have avoided dictators, tyrants, and socialists .. unless they demonstrated freely and exercised their dissent in a manner representative of a respect for the laws of a free society.

 

It seems that NYCPD has adopted a knee-jerk reaction to prohibitions on photography and free speech in a manner seen only when martial-law is declared .. not exactly their shinning moment. Considering all the other ways police could have addressed such problems I understand and welcome such lawsuits .. we can have National Defense and freedom of speech too .. but as it seems, only in America.

I sure wish someone would arrest whoever it is taking all those damn photos of sailboats and puppies out there. When I pause to think about how many downright SKETCHY places Ive gone into to take photographs... and then I multiply that number by how many people I know who go into similar places to take photographs, its really amazing how many people ARNT arrested for photography. Ive been coridally asked to leave places in public which I had every right to photograph, but I didnt press it. On the other hand, Ive had humourous conversations with police officers while obviously tresspassing simply because those specific officers felt my camera gave me a license to be there, and because I was just taking photos, and not painting graffiti or shooting up or raping old ladies. I mean really, is NY all of a sudden so crime-free that the police have turned their attention away from the old lady rapists and pointed it at photographers? Photographers? Really? Most of the photographers I know are down-right NERDS, a far cry from militant terrorists or gangbangers. Maybe NY should just think about melting down the Statue of Liberty and replacing it with a giant sculpture of a hand making the universal sign-language for "get bent".

everyone with any brains knows 911 was an inside job!

I've been on both sides of the camera relative to "national security". Artistic or documentary photo of subway stations aren't very useful to persons who intend harm.

 

What a great project Arun Wiita started! I hope it turns out well for him. I'd love to see the results. I'll also continue using the NY subways when I'm there.

I'm right behnid the NYCLU. While the powers-that-be are harrassing law-abiding people, drug-dealers, illegal arms dealers and people-traffickers are running amok. Whose side are governments on?

Actually police typically go well beyond the scope of their powers or knowledge.

 

Often people in NYC will be harrassed for photographing things, when in fact, there is absolutely no law that prohibits photographing anything from public ground.

 

9/11 and terrorism became a convenient way for a government to crack down on civil liberties under the premise of our safety.

 

The reality is very good images can be taken of subway stations through means less obtrusive than this guys website.

 

A cell camera, a hidden video camera, etc can all be employed.

 

Be very careful how you give up your liberties, in many countries around the world people still die fighting for basic human rights. To give them up without a fight is pretty sad.

I agree very strongly with that last paragraph from Justin. Many people sprout the line that we can't give in to the terrorists as then they have won, but that is exactly what we are doing when we ditch long held civil freedoms. I'm not saying there isn't a threat out there, but incumbant governments certainly benefit from maintaining a climate of fear (hence the psuedo police state tactics). Here in Australia, we have just voted and sent a clear message that we are fed up with the politics of fear, and are ready to focus on more nationally pressing issues such as health and education.

 

Finally, I love that quote by Benjamin Franklin. The politics of early America must have been a fascinating time. It's a shame the state of politics now has degenerated to such a sorry state.

Waite--

I assume you actually are a rational person and are being tongue in cheek here.

 

As for subway photos, I know the hassles well. I am a "railfan photographer", also known as a "foamer." I'm not sure what it is about taking obvious photos of a subway or train moving along that sets off the paranoia alarm in the mind's of the police. It's an even more severed reaction in the minds of the six bucks an hour rent-a-cops. I think they may have a mindset that anything different from the norm is a threat, I don't know. We've seen battles over this won in recent years. Mayor Bloomberg came out and announced taking photos of subways is OK. I think New Jersey you have to get a free permit or something else insane. Chicago backed down from not allowing photos of commuter trains last year. So folks, keep up the fight. It's important, and it's one we can win! I'm not normally an ACLU fan, but it is great to see them doing something else besides making life easier for pedophiles for a change.

 

 

Kent in SD

I especially like it when I'm told how much I'm being protected but I won't be told from who or when this protection took place.

 

You may not agree with the cases that the ACLU takes, but they are also protecting your rights as defined by the constitution. I for one am not willing to give up rights, even if I don't use them. To call the ACLU am organization the protects pedophiles is disengenous.

The ACLU may push their perspective sometimes in defending the Bill of Rights - which thousands have died defending in every REAL war - but I'll take that over the heavy handed tactics the government and especially the NYPD use at times. In 2004 there were 500,000 protesters in NYC at a perfectly legal march against Bush - where dozens were arrested and detained for days for no real reason - and as always, without apology. I know, I was there.

 

The government and police believe they are the only good guys and everyone else is just another felon or terrorist waiting to be caught. They are not all bad people, but they become very paranoid and believe if they controlled everything the world would somehow be a better place. This totally ignores the number of police officers and government officials that have been arrested and convicted of all sorts of crimes. Their main interest is NOT anyone's freedoms. Someone has to hold them accountable to some degree - since they can't police or control themselves, hence the power of the courts and the balance of powers in the U.S. - so go for it ACLU.

 

Police will often go after a lesser threat to give the appearance of doing something, especially when the general population - also known as 'sheep-ple' - are afraid of something. Ever see folks on the news saying something stupid like "he didn't look like a murderer!" Identifying real threats in the real world is not easy, if not impossible at times. But society and the police are willing to put innocent people in jail just to have the feeling of being safer or take revenge for something that's already happened.

 

Ok, back to our wonderful world of photography. I'm not looking for confrontation or to cause one bit of trouble. Never been arrested and don't plan on it. But I will take whatever pictures I want that are within my rights. If challenged I will be polite and respectfull, and knowledgeable about my rights. This sort of police behavior is just what the terrorists wanted, to affect all of our lives somehow, and a loss of our freedoms is a fantastic win for them. I can hear bin Laden laughing now...

First, a correction to the original post:<p>

 

According to the articles, the man was not arrested. He was detained for questioning, then released. He was never arrested, and never charged with any offense.<p>

 

This may appear to be trivial, and since he alleges he was handcuffed during this detention, he was quite evidently not free to leave during the questioning. It's not worth dwelling on it at this point, but there can be important legal differences between a temporary stop, or detention, and an arrest.<p>

 

I've posted many times on photo.net on matters like this -- virtually 100% of the time in favor of the photographer. And I'm supportive of the photographer here as well. But I would add that there is room for law enforcement professionals to question persons who are engaged in behavior that arouses suspicion, even when that behavior, in and of itself, does not amount to the commission of a crime. The problems are defining the "suspicious" behavior, deciding when it warrants further inquiry, and determining how far to take that inquiry. <p>

 

Here, the mere taking of these photos should not have aroused suspicion, and the plaintiff also claims that had he not been a foreigner, it would not have aroused suspicion. That's what this lawsuit will be about.<p>

 

Here is a <a href=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19418>more detailed article, with additional references</a>.

Who came to Rush Oxy-Limbaugh aid? Oh yeah, it was the ACLU. The funny part? He didn't turn them away. Did someone actually say socialists? Yeah, we want to redistribute your wealth. Communism is as dead as Ole Joe McCarthy in America. The list? There were never any names on it. See the list was like fear, you keep waving it and people get scared.

 

Democrats don't want your guns, we don't want your money, and we won't scrap the stem cells off your neck when you're not looking. There's no commies or socialists in Hollywood and not everyone with a camera wants to blow something up.