Apparently there were some advisories sent to local law enforcement
agencies about watching for photography of "sensitive" objects and sites,
but DHS won't reveal the specifics of them. And that is part of the
problem . . . local law enforcement making up "rules" (I won't call the
laws as there are none) and touting them as "law" in a manner attorneys
love to refer to as "arbitrary and capricious."
If you find and follow the aftermath of a number of the arrest cases,
you'll find there has typically been a civil lawsuit against the local
government and law enforcement agency citing "false arrest" and violation
of U.S. 1st Amendment rights. All the ones I'm aware of have been settled
out of court after a (comparatively) very short litigation with the locals
paying a sum to the victim in compensation for being arrested or held or
questioned (for many hours) without cause.
However, it seems the "word" has not been getting out that both federal and
local law enforcement do have clear boundaries beyond which they cannot go
in confronting photographers without incurring a civil tort liability for
their actions, and it has apparently not been that difficult for some of
the higher profile claimants to prevail relatively quickly.
-- John Lind
At 03:03 PM 6/17/2005, John Hermanson wrote:
>Apparently it is perfectly legal to take a picture of anything from public
>land, suprising they didn't try to take photography rights away by writing
>it into the patriot act.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|