ASMP and ACLU gathering data on police harassment of photographers

email I got from ASMP today:

Concerns over security can sometimes make law enforcement officers,
security guards, and even private citizens get carried away. A number
of government agencies have been encouraging citizens to report
“suspicious behaviors,� and one of the specific activities often listed
as suspicious is photography. By way of specific example, the LAPD has
issued an Order listing 65 suspicious behaviors that LAPD officers are
required to report, and one of them is taking pictures or video footage
“with no apparent esthetic value.�
ASMP is working with the ACLU to try to combine security with some
basic common sense and fairness. To do that, we need to provide as many
concrete examples as possible of photographers being stopped,
questioned, harrassed or even detained for just taking photographs. If
this has happened to you some time over the past three years or so,
please send an email to me at or just reply to this
message. Please put “SAR� in the subject line (the police acronym for
“Suspicious Activity Reporting�) and let me have a description of what
you were doing, what happened, where it took place, the approximate
date of the incident, and its outcome. I will then pass the information
along to the ACLU. If you wish to have your anecdote remain anonymous,
please let me know that in the email.
Many thanks for your assistance, and thank you all for your being
members of ASMP,
Vic
Victor S. Perlman General Counsel & Managing Director
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:35:18 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

issued an Order listing 65 suspicious behaviors that LAPD officers are
required to report, and one of them is taking pictures or video footage

****“with no apparent esthetic value.”***

LOL! Well, there's 99.999% of all people toting any kind of camera no
matter where they are, right there! Just look at all their crapshots as
proof!

Might as well make all camera's illegal then. Then only the true pros will
be outlaws. Hell, I wouldn't even bother walking in to sign for a permit to
carry one either. I don't do that with my gun, why my camera?

LOL!


[Criminals who carry a gun without a permit are more Constitutionally
correct and are more truthfully supporting the meaning of freedom than
"law-abiding" citizens who are manipulated through threats and fear to get
a concealed-weapon's permit. Believe it, or not.]

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:35:18 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

email I got from ASMP today:

Why do you assume that we know who/what "ASMP" is? OK, I looked it
up: American Society of Media Photographers.


Concerns over security can sometimes make law enforcement officers,
security guards, and even private citizens get carried away. A number
of government agencies have been encouraging citizens to report
“suspicious behaviors,” and one of the specific activities often listed
as suspicious is photography. By way of specific example, the LAPD has
issued an Order listing 65 suspicious behaviors that LAPD officers are
required to report, and one of them is taking pictures or video footage
“with no apparent esthetic value.”
ASMP is working with the ACLU to try to combine security with some
basic common sense and fairness. To do that, we need to provide as many
concrete examples as possible of photographers being stopped,
questioned, harrassed or even detained for just taking photographs. If
this has happened to you some time over the past three years or so,
please send an email to me at or just reply to this
message. Please put “SAR” in the subject line (the police acronym for
“Suspicious Activity Reporting”) and let me have a description of what
you were doing, what happened, where it took place, the approximate
date of the incident, and its outcome. I will then pass the information
along to the ACLU. If you wish to have your anecdote remain anonymous,
please let me know that in the email.
Many thanks for your assistance, and thank you all for your being
members of ASMP,
Vic
Victor S. Perlman General Counsel & Managing Director

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:32:17 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:35:18 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

email I got from ASMP today:

Why do you assume that we know who/what "ASMP" is? OK, I looked it
up: American Society of Media Photographers.

Yes. We must take into consideration that some countries block access
to Google.

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:35:18 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

email I got from ASMP today:

Why do you assume that we know who/what "ASMP" is? OK, I looked it
up: American Society of Media Photographers.



Did you look up ACLU as well, or just assume we'd all know what that is?

Sorry Tony, couldn't resist it. No harm intended, mate :-)


--
Regards


Bristolian

On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:09:25 +0000, Bristolian
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:35:18 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

email I got from ASMP today:

Why do you assume that we know who/what "ASMP" is? OK, I looked it
up: American Society of Media Photographers.



Did you look up ACLU as well, or just assume we'd all know what that is?

Sorry Tony, couldn't resist it. No harm intended, mate :-)

Good point, but I did assume that "ACLU" has more global recognition
than "ASMP". The American Civil Liberties Union often takes on
unpopular cases that become high-profile because the general public,
in these cases, doesn't want the ACLU's client to win.

For example, they might represent a convicted child molester who has
been denied rights not taken away by his/her conviction on that
charge. The ACLU take on cases that other attorneys shun because they
don't want to be associated with the plaintiff. The ACLU also takes
on cases where the public would be in support of the plaintiff, but
these don't tend to make the news.

I'm not sure, but I think the Liberty group, or the National Council
for Civil Liberties, in the UK is a similar organization.

That's kind of strange to this American because the word "Liberty" in
association with a group of attorneys in the US means the "Liberty
Counsel": a group that represents the religious right and the
self-apppointed guardians of our morals and behavior. They are the
arch-enemies of the ACLU because the two groups are constantly
battling over prayers in school and religious groups sponsored somehow
by schools.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Bristolian" wrote in message
...
tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:35:18 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

email I got from ASMP today:

Why do you assume that we know who/what "ASMP" is? OK, I looked it
up: American Society of Media Photographers.

Did you look up ACLU as well, or just assume we'd all know what that is?

Sorry Tony, couldn't resist it. No harm intended, mate :-)

It can get confusing I've an american friend that thinks a SLR is Self
Loading Rifle

In my world TTL has always been Transistor-Transistor Logic, when I brought
my
2nd SLR it had TTL metering (Praktica VLC2)

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...


Good point, but I did assume that "ACLU" has more global recognition
than "ASMP". The American Civil Liberties Union often takes on
unpopular cases that become high-profile because the general public,
in these cases, doesn't want the ACLU's client to win.

For example, they might represent a convicted child molester who has
been denied rights not taken away by his/her conviction on that
charge. The ACLU take on cases that other attorneys shun because they
don't want to be associated with the plaintiff. The ACLU also takes
on cases where the public would be in support of the plaintiff, but
these don't tend to make the news.

I'm not sure, but I think the Liberty group, or the National Council
for Civil Liberties, in the UK is a similar organization.

That's kind of strange to this American because the word "Liberty" in
association with a group of attorneys in the US means the "Liberty
Counsel": a group that represents the religious right and the
self-apppointed guardians of our morals and behavior. They are the
arch-enemies of the ACLU because the two groups are constantly
battling over prayers in school and religious groups sponsored somehow
by schools.


Usually when the ACLU takes such a case it is not really defending the
accused. It is defending the people against the potential tyranny of the
state.

--
Peter

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:11:36 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .


Good point, but I did assume that "ACLU" has more global recognition
than "ASMP". The American Civil Liberties Union often takes on
unpopular cases that become high-profile because the general public,
in these cases, doesn't want the ACLU's client to win.

For example, they might represent a convicted child molester who has
been denied rights not taken away by his/her conviction on that
charge. The ACLU take on cases that other attorneys shun because they
don't want to be associated with the plaintiff. The ACLU also takes
on cases where the public would be in support of the plaintiff, but
these don't tend to make the news.

I'm not sure, but I think the Liberty group, or the National Council
for Civil Liberties, in the UK is a similar organization.

That's kind of strange to this American because the word "Liberty" in
association with a group of attorneys in the US means the "Liberty
Counsel": a group that represents the religious right and the
self-apppointed guardians of our morals and behavior. They are the
arch-enemies of the ACLU because the two groups are constantly
battling over prayers in school and religious groups sponsored somehow
by schools.


Usually when the ACLU takes such a case it is not really defending the
accused. It is defending the people against the potential tyranny of the
state.

I understand that. In the child molester example, the child molester
is the plaintiff, not the defendant. He was the defendant in the
child molestation case, but the plaintiff in the current case. He may
be, for example, fighting some local law about where he can reside.

A city may have a law that a convicted child molester cannot live
within X distance of a school. If X is prohibitively large, that may
prevent the person from living anywhere in the city. The ACLU may
represent the person to apply for a variance that allows the person to
find accommodation.

No one wants to see a child molester benefit from a lawsuit, so the
ACLU is viewed as doing something detrimental to society. In fact,
the ACLU is providing the basic right of legal representation to all.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:11:36 -0500, "Peter"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...


Good point, but I did assume that "ACLU" has more global recognition
than "ASMP". The American Civil Liberties Union often takes on
unpopular cases that become high-profile because the general public,
in these cases, doesn't want the ACLU's client to win.

For example, they might represent a convicted child molester who has
been denied rights not taken away by his/her conviction on that
charge. The ACLU take on cases that other attorneys shun because
they don't want to be associated with the plaintiff. The ACLU also
takes on cases where the public would be in support of the
plaintiff, but these don't tend to make the news.

I'm not sure, but I think the Liberty group, or the National Council
for Civil Liberties, in the UK is a similar organization.

That's kind of strange to this American because the word "Liberty"
in association with a group of attorneys in the US means the
"Liberty Counsel": a group that represents the religious right and
the self-apppointed guardians of our morals and behavior. They are
the arch-enemies of the ACLU because the two groups are constantly
battling over prayers in school and religious groups sponsored
somehow by schools.


Usually when the ACLU takes such a case it is not really defending
the accused. It is defending the people against the potential
tyranny of the state.

I understand that. In the child molester example, the child molester
is the plaintiff, not the defendant. He was the defendant in the
child molestation case, but the plaintiff in the current case. He may
be, for example, fighting some local law about where he can reside.

A city may have a law that a convicted child molester cannot live
within X distance of a school. If X is prohibitively large, that may
prevent the person from living anywhere in the city. The ACLU may
represent the person to apply for a variance that allows the person to
find accommodation.

No one wants to see a child molester benefit from a lawsuit, so the
ACLU is viewed as doing something detrimental to society. In fact,
the ACLU is providing the basic right of legal representation to all.

Which particular ACLU action do you have in mind?