Charges dropped against photographer documenting Army promotion in Philly

[trex1]

<p>Amazing.<br>

America is so far off course it is just jaw dropping. "Freedom," "the pursuit of happiness," "life" "liberty." These are the words the world should be thinking of when they think about America. Not photographers being dragged off by goons more at home in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.<br>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/charges-dropped-against-j_b_433955.html</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What part has you the most upset? That disruptive protesters were arrested (and that an activist photographer "on assignment" from a <em>blog</em> got caught up in it), or that the the DA reviewed the evidence and said, "no, there's not enough to worry about in her failure to disperse from the scene as the officers ordered, so the charges are dropped" ?<br /><br />She can pursue a false arrest suit, now, if she really feels like it, and she and the media can follow it and talk about it all they want, as always. Rather in contrast to life under the two regimes you mentioned.</p>

[trex1]

<p>People need to stand up for their rights. Use em or lose em.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>The part that upsets me is arresting anyone who is recording the arrests. The main reason to arrest someone taking pictures of something you're doing (you being the police or the government) is that you're embarrassed to have the pictures end up in a newspaper or online. And dropping the charges after four months seems like a travesty of a speedy trial. Our mainstream media is underfunded and is unable to check our goverment's excesses -- that role increasingly falls to less official media. Someone taking pictures of how our government handles protests should be protected from overzealous law enforcement officials. That's my opinion anyway.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Being arrested while photographing a news event, and living under the threat of trial and imprisonment for four months isn't trivial. Even a much shorter arrest can be harrowing. Driving in Eastern Europe as a tourist during the Communist period, my father-in-law was detained after he failed to notice that there was a military installation far away in the background. He took a photograph and got arrested. A crowd gathered. He was saved when a little boy noticed that my father-in-law was driving a rental car, which the police accepted as evidence that he was just a tourist. He was released, by a logic that made as much sense as his arrest. He was able to laugh after returning home, but at the time it was a frightening experience. We once made fun of these things, or denounced them as evidence of totalitarianism, when they happened in Eastern Europe, but they don't seem so funny or so serious when they happen in the U.S.</p>

<p>Putting journalists, whether they are blog journalists or not, under the threat of arrest for covering a story makes for selective news coverage -- fewer of the stories the government doesn't want covered will be covered. I'm surprised that photographers, often an independent lot, would consider such arrests to be all right.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>Putting journalists, whether they are blog journalists or not, under the threat of arrest for covering a story makes for selective news coverage -- fewer of the stories the government doesn't want covered will be covered. I'm surprised that photographers, often an independent lot, would consider such arrests to be all right.<br /></em><br />Who said that (in the way you described it) is "all right?" The problem is that you're speculating about the circumstances. It's just as easy to speculate that when a handful of people decide they're going to attend a military event with the express purpose of disrupting the proceedings, that their blog-writing friend isn't there with a camera not to "cover the graduation" but rather to give her friends the protesters as much mileage as possible with their publicity stunt. And since they're there with an axe to grind, and have brought their "own" media with them, it's not surprising to hear that their blogging buddy was staying as in-the-thick-of-it as possible, for maximum "the man is out to get us" impact.<br /><br />Whether or not the cops' radar was correct as to the camera-using person's purpose and actions, there are a lot of factors that could easily (in the middle of stopping people who turned out to be there specifically to disrupt a planned activity) have added up to the photographer seeming to be being part of the protestors' show. How's that for speculation? It's no less plausible than being arrested for "photographing a news event," which ain't what happened.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>It's easy to cry foul and state that journalists shouldn't be arrested.</p>

<p>Last I knew, being a journalist didn't give one carte blanche. If the police give the order to clear out, you risk arrest if you stay to document what's going on. Seems like it shouldn't be a big deal for an established journalist with a reputable news agency to make a phone call and start the ball rolling after being accidentally arrested. It's probably a bit more bothersome for those who play at being a journalist and are there to gather news for a blog.</p>

<p>If everybody with a camera has protection against being arrested, I'm guessing the protesters will start carrying cameras. And since we weren't there and don't know the actual facts, it's possible this is what happened. Was the journalist in the story truly impartial and non-biased? Dunno. We won't ever know.</p>

<p>What's the answer? Well, if I were going to cover an event like this, I think I'd talk with a liason at the police department ahead of time to get some tips. If I were going to do this a lot, I'd be making sure that the guys and gals in blue know who I am and know that I'm not a threat to them. Seems like a little common sense would go a long way.</p>

[rick_dorn]

<p>My biggest surprise here is that some PN readers think this is new behavior on the part of American police. Harassment of journalists (whether real or purported) has gone on for decades in this country, especially during periods of political unrest. You can find numerous examples of it throughout the history of the last century. While much of what has been posted is valid, people who refuse to cooperate with Police during demonstrations like this one always run the risk of being thrown in the slammer. In that sense, photographers and print journalists have no special "rights". They are not permitted to ignore the authorities in the course of their reporting.<br>

I won't offer comment on this particular event, other than to say it is far less serious that other incidents I have seen, and she got off very lightly.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>The biggest indication that the police had no business arresting the photographer is that the District Attorney decided not to prosecute, even though it opened the city of Philadelphia to criticism and a possible lawsuit. "News" organizations working with demonstrators is certainly not news -- it happens every time Fox "covers" a tea party.</p>

<p>Rick, you're right, cases like this arrest aren't new. In New York, they go back at least as far as the 1735 case against Peter Zenger.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Especially since once they arrest you they usually try to charge you with something in order to try to justify their actions.</p>

[john_jennings2]

<p>On the bright side, this is a resume builder for her, so is win/win all around.</p>