Mass ACLU asks Boston MBTA to lay off photographers

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"Maybe Bean Town should lighten up."

 

Really. I was just back in beantown for the first time in 8 years or so, and took a few shots on the T and got yelled at. I stuck my nose into the outbound side of the construction at Charles St. and got asked what I was up to (clearly friendly curiosity, not obnoxiousness) but when I took a shot of the other side of the construction, someone over there yelled obnoxiously that photography wasn't allowed. The shots of the friendly guys were boring (probably because they were largely ignoring me except when I was getting too close (I really wanted to take some shots of the jail from the construction site, but wimped out about asking permission)), but I seem to have gotten a shot of the obnoxious bloke that makes said obnoxious bloke look obnoxious.

[roger_smith4]

Re: Boston- I thought a while back someone posted here about the Big Dig photographer who never got permission but kept showing up underground until the workers just got used to him. I think he just put out a book.

 

Re: ACLU- I think their narrow legal advocacy is unstrategic, but do give them credit for protecting free speech broadly. They are suing to block campaign finance limits on free speech grounds, and defend unpopular clients like Neo-Nazis.

[michael s.]

You may be referring to <a href=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1889833924/qid=1100388185/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/002-8666687-2408808?n=507846&s=books&v=glance>"Digging," Michael Hintlian's book</a>. <p>

 

Those critical of the ACLU would do well to examine the organizaton's <a href=http://aclu.org/about/index.html>mission, as described by the ACLU itself</a>. <p>

 

Had some of the critics been founders, the mission might well be different. Or perhaps the critics would prefer that the ACLU not exist at all. In any case, since the <i>real</i> ACLU -- as distinct from the boogeyman occasionally constructed by detractors (not necessarily on this thread, incidentally) -- is in its 87th year and still strong and active, I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss or minimize the organization.

[jdrose]

"Lay off" definitely confused me. But after reading the thread I understand. Go ACLU!

[peterblaise]

.

 

So, here's a quote from that useful refrence to keep the story in balance:

 

=============================

 

from: http://aclu.org/about/index.html

 

 

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

 

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

 

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

 

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

 

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

 

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

 

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

 

We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

 

If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

 

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920. We are nonprofit and nonpartisan and have grown from a roomful of civil liberties activists to an organization of more than 500,000 members and supporters. We handle nearly 6,000 court cases annually from our offices in almost every state.

 

The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding. Learn more about joining the ACLU.

 

http://aclu.org/supportaclu/index.html

 

=============================

 

Ahhhh ... as a photographer, I feel safe again. Not that I won't get accosted, but that someone will fight alongside me if I do!

 

More in the current Pop Photo June 2006 magazine page 75 on, a series of articles starting with "The War on Photographers" - geesh!

 

SHOOT BACK!

 

Let's take our cameras with us everywhere and shoot everything all the time!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Photography is Free Speech http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[don_mckeith]

The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration.

 

"Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement," the committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals.

 

"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

 

Given the organization's longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals.

 

 

I don't agree with those who demonize the ACLU, but I'm disappointed in how it has declined over the past decade or two. The ACLU has been corrupted by its dependence on a comparatively small fundraising base, something that's common with nonprofits. The organization also seems to have been captured by the paid staff, which feels entitled to run things without the Board's actual input That's another common problem in the nonprofit world. But this is making clear just how far things have gone at the ACLU, at the expense of its ostensible mission.

 

posted at 08:14 AM by Glenn Reynolds-

 

http://instapundit.com/archives/030517.php

[peterblaise]

.

 

Hmmm ... the ACLU board discussiona sound just like discussions on photo.net!

 

;-)

 

Well, all the more reason for all of us join and take over the ACLU and MAKE it what we want it to be!

 

 

http://www.aclu.com/contact/general/index.html

 

"... We welcome your comments, suggestions and ideas. Please complete the form below.

 

Please note, however, that because of the high volume of email we receive each day, we cannot individually respond to each message.

 

Required items indicated with *.

Name:*

Email Address:*

Phone Number:

Subject:*

Message:* ..."

 

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Photography is Free Speech http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[tholte]

As Peter mentioned above, the June issue of Popular Photography has a great article on the hassles of shooting in a post 9/11 society. It would behoove photographers to read it and get a basic understanding of what our rights are when dealing with real cops and the ubiquitous rent-a-cops.

[peterblaise]

.

 

In response to: "... d.. m.., jun 16, 2006 ... American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration ... posted at 08:14 AM by Glenn Reynolds -

http://instapundit.com/archives/030517.php ..."

 

PLEASE identify a quote as a "... quote ...", and PLEASE tell us why you are quoting it, that is, tell us what YOU think, add your own words, tell us why YOU responded to the quote. PLEASE don't make us read the whole thing speculating why YOU shared it - you tell us. Also, Glenn Reynolds is NOT a participant here, so that tipped me off that this was a complete unreferenced quote with nothing BY the poster included. Anyway, this thread is NOT really about the ACLU as much as it's here because it's about photogrpahy, but the free speech irony noted! =8^o

 

Thank you all. GREAT and provocative thread - keep it up. I can't wait for the Pop Photo article "The War oh Photographers" to make it to their web site - VERY complete and expansive with examples.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com

[don_mckeith]

Peter-

 

PLEASE identify a quote as a "... quote -

 

I gave you a hot link to the source of the quote, signature and time stamp--had you used it,you would have found this primary source link-

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/us/24aclu.html?ex=1306123200&en=cd8a5fd1f6941a5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

 

I don't think "quotation" marks could do better than that.

 

"tell us what YOU think,"-

 

nobody cares what I think,but since you asked-

 

-The mission is over,when it becomes just another business.

(I thought that was obvious)- Donald Mckeith,star date-2006,---17th day of June---Planet Earth---entering the Taurid Stream.

[keirst]

I was once accosted by a token vendor for trying to take a picture of the stairs at the

Boylston station on Boston. I asked her "Why can't I take pictures? Isn't this public

property?" She said "You know, 9/11." I protested that I had First amendment rights to

take pictures, to which she responded by threatening to call the police and have me

arrested. Not wanting to have the situation escalate, I left without taking any more shots.

 

What galls me is that the policy is not publicly recorded. You cannot go to the MBTA

website and find anything about photography permits except for commercial film/video

projects. For still photography, the MBTA is treating some photographers one way, by

allowing tourist snapshots, then turning around and stopping artistic/documentary

photographers. I think this inconsistency alone makes the policy legally questionable, to

say nothing of running afoul of the First Amendment rights of photographers (as

protected by lots of case law in other situations). Keeping the policy informal and

unwritten is also an invitation to petty tyrannies of "T" employees, who harass

photographers or not depending on gut feeling alone.

 

I also agree that if terrorists were to case out a subway system they would use the least

obvious camera phones, miniature DV camcorders, and sketch layouts from memory. How

is harassing a photographer openly shooting with a 35mm or digital camera going to

catch a bad guy? It makes no sense form a security point of view, so it's a sham to try to

ease the fear of subway patrons while doing nothing to really protect anyone.

[keirst]

Last year I did inquire about the policy via the www.MBTA.com website's Feedback form.

Here is the response I got:<br><br>

 

<i>"Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:24:25 -0400<br>

From: "Feedback" <mbta-fb@mbta.com><br>

Subject: Re: Fwd: 050922543 Inquiry<br><br>

 

Dear Mr. Keirstead:<br><br>

 

This is the MBTA's Photo Policy:<br><br>

 

All applicants for a photo permit must be 18 years of age or older. Two

forms of identification must be submitted and a CORI check will be

performed on all applicants.<br><br>

Further, all applicants must appear in person at Marketing

Communications, 10 Park Plaza, Boston or MBTA Police Headquarters, 240

Southampton Street, Boston, to obtain the photo permit. Applicants must

acknowledge and accept the disclaimer found on the back of the photo

permit. The applicant's signature is required for validation.<br><br>

 

The primary mission of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

(MBTA) is to provide safe, convenient, and reliable public

transportation services to over 1 million people daily. Any activity

that interferes with service delivery shall not be allowed. <br><br>

 

An individual who violates the terms of the Photo Permit agreement will

have said permit revoked. <br><br>

 

Please be advised that all individuals who have been granted a photo

permit are required to display it on their person at all times when

taking photographs while on MBTA property."<br><br></i>

 

I have not bothered to get a permit, but I have not taken any MBTA pictures since then

either. I wonder if I could get in trouble if I did so now, since some anonymous MBTA

official sent me this private communication. Hopefully, this will soon be moot, if the "T"

submits to the ACLU's legal reasoning on this issue.

I hope the MBTA will formulate a rational policy that allows all photography in all publicly

accessible areas.

[don_mckeith]

Latest News, May 22, 2005

The New York Daily News reports today that the ban is dead. "``We are not pressing for a ban,'' NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne told The News." ``"In the wake of the public comments period, after consulting with the NYPD, which had originally requested the rule change, MTA NYC Transit will not go forward with the institution of a photo ban," TA spokesman Charles Seaton said." -

 

why is the ban dead?

 

 

"Why prevent only NEW photography?" Is this a prelude to even more bans, this time on web sites? nycsubway.org includes over 11,000 photos of the subway lines, past and present, and over 17,000 more of transit systems worldwide. Should these be considered historical documents or a source of information to terrorists? Webmasters and contributors could even be labeled terrorist facilitators. Even the Library of Congress has close up, detailed photos of key structures and bridges, "soft targets". Will there be attempts to censor the Library of Congress? Permitting a ban on NEW photography is another step toward removal of ALL of these websites, in the name of "security".

 

Protests-

 

On June 6th there was a "flashmob" protest. A great writeup of the demonstration is here: the Protest: you are there from Forgotten NY.

 

Contests

Several photo contests have been started up in "protest" of the ban. Both contests are geared more toward "slice of life" photography in the subway, rather than "railfan" photography, but everyone probably has a good usable photograph to submit.

Straphanger's Campaign Contest

Village Voice Contest DeviantART

 

of course if you live in beantown,you may be in the "bubble"--that's the University bubble----a 5 mile bubble,sourrounded by reality.

 

 

http://www.nycsubway.org/photoban.html

 

http://www.forgotten-ny.com/protest/flashmob.html

[keirst]

The MBTA "policy" for permits has been a stealth operation which apparently predates the

MTA photo ban proposal and 9/11/2001 by several years. Apparently the Beantown (and

nobody easts a particularly large amount of beans here) authoritarianism was more

farsighted than NYC's, but just as foolish. Boston's photographic community is not very

political or very unified. A lot of sheep here, but it would be good if we could organize a

Boston T Photo Party as a protest.

[keirst]

Here are two Letters to the Boston Globe Following their story on the issue. The first one is

from the former counter-terrorism chief NYC's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, who

thinks poorly of the MBTA photo policy in Boston. <br><Br>

 

Focusing on T shutterbugs <br>

June 20, 2006 <br><br>

 

THE MBTA poses problems with its unwritten policy of giving police the choice to let

people take pictures on transit property as long as the people are not in "sensitive" areas

("ACLU threatens to sue over limits to photographing the T," City & Region, June 13).

<br><br>

 

Banning photography and videotaping from any publicly accessible area makes no sense

and does little to enhance security. <br><br>

 

Having cops leave high-profile security posts and counterterrorism patrols to enforce

vague and ambiguous policies is a waste of precious police resources and may lead to

selective enforcement and racial profiling. <br><br>

 

But limiting picture-taking in certain situations makes sense. Arenas and theaters

discourage flash photography, which distracts performers and causes confusion, as do

commercial photography and filmmaking in crowded areas. Trespassing into "sensitive"

areas, such as tunnels, yards, and garages, is already prohibited by law and that makes

sense too. <br><br>

 

But beefing up security and freeing cops to protect commuters makes the most sense.

<br><br>

 

NICHOLAS CASALE <br>

New York <br>

 

<I>The writer was deputy director of security for counterterrorism from 2002 to 2003 for

New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority. </I><br><br><br>

 

I HAVE been a victim of overzealousness by T police while photographing along Beacon

Street in Brookline and in Mattapan. MBTA general manager Daniel Grabauskas is the one

who is "insulting and naive," not the American Civil Liberties Union. He doesn't understand

that we must not allow our civil liberties to be eliminated for the sake of the perception of

safety. <br><br>

 

Terrorist acts have not resulted from tourists and railroad enthusiasts taking photos of

trains and trolleys. The issue here is not safety but, rather, fear. Nobody questions the

duty of the police to question suspicious behavior, but Mr. Grabauskas frames it in a way

that may suit his authoritarian tendencies. <br><br>

 

JACK MAY <br>

Montclair, N.J.<br>

[don_mckeith]

Where's Robert Kline when you need him?-

 

from his old "cold war" shtick-

 

"The Russians aren't stupid,they'll attack at noon."

[Stock-Photos]

MBTA photo! Oppps!

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7385582&size=lg