Texas bill would establish a 25-foot police photography "buffer zone"

[bobatkins]

<p>I myself haven't removed any contributions to this thread, but by posting anything to the site all users have agreed to the terms of use, which include the following:</p>

<p>"<em>We reserve the right to edit, redact or delete any User Content that you upload to the Site, at our sole discretion</em>."</p>

<p>Courts have consistently held that exercising traditional editorial functions over user-submitted content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, is immunized under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The only exception is if a <em>partial</em> edit materially distorts the meaning of the edited material. e.g turning "I like cheese" into "I do not like cheese"</p>

<p>I'm just pointing this out, <strong>not</strong> offering it as a subject for debate. Disagreements should be taken up with site management, <strong>not posted in a forum and especially not in this thread</strong>. Further comments about forum policies and moderator actions will be removed. Further comments on the topic of photography restrictions will be welcomed.</p>

<p>BTW, I have a Ph.D. too, but rarely expose it in public.</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<p>Switching gears a bit, if anyone is still reading... <br /><br />What kind of conduct do photographers, in particular, do that is disruptive to law enforcement performing their duties and what restrictions, relative to photography and not just generally, will actually prevent that?</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>The only thing I could think of is someone getting in really close for a "better" picture. However that's covered by the existing restrictions on interfering with a police officer when they are performing their duty. Police don't want a bunch of people milling around them when they are trying to arrest someone, if only for their own safety. Of course the same applies whether or not they are carrying cameras.</p>

<p>I suspect all of this stems from the Texas open carry situation, where AK-47 carrying videographers rush to the scene of police action:</p>

<p><em>On any given night in Arlington, Texas, a group of open-carry activists turned self-appointed cop-watchers can be found walking by the side of the road, in safety-yellow reflector vests with cameras pointed at police. They carry “FILM THE POLICE” signs, and sometimes, in a habit that’s become of increasing concern to the officers being watched, they’re carrying guns of their own.</em><br /> <em>According to Watkins, who often carries his AK-47 while cop-watching, the group makes as many as 20 stops a session, depending on the night. - </em><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/02/texas-gun-nuts-police-the-police-with-a-black-panthers-tactic.html">[link]</a><br /> <br />Personally I'd be a lot more worried by the AK-47 than the camera, but attempting to ban the AK-47 would draw the wrath of the NRA, while attempting to ban the action based on the photography aspect is likely to draw less fire (so to speak...).</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I've had the opportunity to take photographs in situations that include inherent risk -- for example with the LSO during carrier landings. The last thing the LSO needs to be concerned about is my safety or the potential for me interfering with his (or her) very demanding job. The same is with law enforcement. If a photographer is paying attention to capturing an image, they are devoting less attention to the overall situation and could easily present a risk to all concerned. Keeping the photographer back a reasonable distance is certainly the prudent thing to do. No one arguing here has made a case that 25 feet is too far to capture what might be police misconduct. </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>This idiot who thought this bill up, <a href="http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/03/texas-politician-expected-to-withdraw-anti-cop-watching-bill-after-opposition-from-police-union/">has withdrawn it after criticism from the police union</a> because the cops say that making it illegal at 25 feet makes it legal at 26, and that's apparently not good enough for them. <br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Correction. Is <em>expected</em> to withdraw it.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>Nobody made the case 25 feet is not too far?<br />The subject was brought up, but I guess you missed it. <br /><br />With the type of camera that might be expected-- a five meg camera with an heavily compressed images; an extremely wide angle, cheap plastic lens; and electronic zoom-- 25 feet would produce useless images. But that's apparently what you want.</p>

<p> </p>

[henry_brown4]

Finally put to bed: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20150410-bill-to-limit-filming-of-police-activity-is-dropped.ece