5.56X45mm
Milforum Mac Daddy
No, this isn’t about guns. It’s about photography. Via Insty comes this classic of governmental statist-speak. First the reaffirmation of a right, from Brit HomeSec Jacqui Smith:
Then the shading:
And then, the hammer:
So, to illustrate this concept in an American scenario: while we nominally have the freedom to take pictures of anything, if Mayor Daley doesn’t want you taking pics of, say, Chicago policemen beating a man to death, then the law would be on his side, not yours?
I don’ theenk so, Lucy.
I can understand the need for not allowing photos of, for example, a secret military institution. I can’t think of any other instances where photography should be prohibited by government of any description or jurisdiction.
Some years ago, I recall that two guys were arrested for taking pictures of some reservoir in New York state. The judge properly tossed the case out of court.
I note that the U.S. Forestry Service (the people who patrol, amongst other things, our national monuments) have been harassing people for taking pictures. Screw ‘em, the jumped-up little gauleiters.
Yes, I know that photos can be used to plan an attack on something or someone. I also know that taking a cop’s pic while he’s beating someone with a nightstick may cause some embarrassment to a cop—or may even be dangerous to him, if he can be identified thereby, and thus be set up for some kind of retribution.
Tough titty. The only reason a government (ours, or anyone’s) would want to prohibit a record of some proceedings is to cover up misdeeds, and as such, there can be no restriction.
Yeah, it’s inconvenient for government. So is the prospect of an armed populace. But the thought of millions of eyes and ears standing watch with their Nikon Coolpix cameras over our government and their actions is as important to our liberty as the thought of millions of firearms lying in readiness in our closets.
A pox on them, and a pox on anyone who supports their disgusting “reasonable restrictions”.
‘First of all, may I take this opportunity to state that the Government greatly values the importance of the freedom of the press, and as such there is no legal restriction on photography in public places,’ Smith writes.
‘Also, as you will be aware, there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.’
‘Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation.
‘It is for the local Chief Constable, in the case of your letter the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force, to decide how his or her Officers and employees should best balance the rights to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public protection.’
I don’ theenk so, Lucy.
I can understand the need for not allowing photos of, for example, a secret military institution. I can’t think of any other instances where photography should be prohibited by government of any description or jurisdiction.
Some years ago, I recall that two guys were arrested for taking pictures of some reservoir in New York state. The judge properly tossed the case out of court.
I note that the U.S. Forestry Service (the people who patrol, amongst other things, our national monuments) have been harassing people for taking pictures. Screw ‘em, the jumped-up little gauleiters.
Yes, I know that photos can be used to plan an attack on something or someone. I also know that taking a cop’s pic while he’s beating someone with a nightstick may cause some embarrassment to a cop—or may even be dangerous to him, if he can be identified thereby, and thus be set up for some kind of retribution.
Tough titty. The only reason a government (ours, or anyone’s) would want to prohibit a record of some proceedings is to cover up misdeeds, and as such, there can be no restriction.
Yeah, it’s inconvenient for government. So is the prospect of an armed populace. But the thought of millions of eyes and ears standing watch with their Nikon Coolpix cameras over our government and their actions is as important to our liberty as the thought of millions of firearms lying in readiness in our closets.
A pox on them, and a pox on anyone who supports their disgusting “reasonable restrictions”.