Your right to take photographs is in v. serious danger

[Bob Salomon]

" my photography did not involve a tripod or LF camera"

Then why did you post this in the Large Format Forum? How many other NG did you post this to?

How much time are you spending doing this instead of taking pictures?

[cyrus]

" my photography did not involve a tripod or LF camera"

Then why did you post this in the Large Format Forum? How many other NG did you post this to?

How much time are you spending doing this instead of taking pictures?

I should have said my photography did not involve an LF camera ON a tripod (I mainly use a handheld 4x5) but in any case, how about another deal, Bob:
You don't need to worry about my photography habits, thank you, and I won't worry about yours. OK?

[cyrus]

Or perhaps spoke like a person who is not throwing a temper tantrum because he did not get his way.

In any case, the funny thing is that the time it has taken you to answer these posts, go see a lawyer, stew over the "unconstitutionality" of this, you could probably have gone down there, ask for the permit, get it and be making photographs. Sometimes you have to chose those battles you think you can win, and in my opinion this is one you are not going to win.

Funny that you'd like to characterize me as someone who is throwing temper tantrums. No, people like me, we don't throw tantrums, or lose our cool or get into arguments - no, we file lawsuits.

And you don't need to worry about what I'm doing with my time. However, if you want to talk about photo permits, I'll be happy to continue because the more people learn about their rights, the less likely I will be to get hassled by some moron.

Incidentally, it was people like me who got the NY subway system to drop their rules restricting photography - the Path system is not immune to the law either.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Funny that you'd like to characterize me as someone who is throwing temper tantrums. No, people like me, we don't throw tantrums, or lose our cool or get into arguments - no, we file lawsuits.

And you don't need to worry about what I'm doing with my time. However, if you want to talk about photo permits, I'll be happy to continue because the more people learn about their rights, the less likely I will be to get hassled by some moron.

Incidentally, it was people like me who got the NY subway system to drop their rules restricting photography - the Path system is not immune to the law either.

Well, that is the difference, I might get in arguments here where it does not cost anything and has no relevance. If I am going to spend money I try not to do it in a fools errand. By all means waste your money an time....no skin off my nose.

[RDKirk]

And while the case he cites - D'Amario - was principally about access, the judge strayed from that into much broader Freedom of Expression territory and essentially ruled that taking photographs anywhere is not a freedom protected by the Constitution.

What the judge is saying is that the basic act of taking a photograph is not an "enumerated right" specifically protected by the Constitution as are, for example, the freedom of the press and the freedom of peaceful assembly. He's not willing to go into "umbras" of the enumerated rights, either (although Cyrus is basically arguing that photography falls into the "umbra" of the freedom of speech).

But just because it's not a specifically enumerated right does not mean it's not a right...most activities engaged in by humans are not enumerated rights, and the Consitution is specific in stating that the rights of American citizens are not limited to those therein enumerated.

Whether photography is an unenumerated right would have to be settled by some case in which other aspects are not overriding. That case was about right of access, and the judge specifically intended that the decision rendered by his court in that case would not be taken as anything more than that.

But taken to its logical conclusion (and of course there's little logical about the law) would be that the following scenario could very conceivably occur: You are driving down a country lane and see a nice view with a barn in a field and the fog coming in. You stop in a public lay-by (or whatever they call them across here...) and pull your 4x5 on a tripod from the trunk and begin taking pictures of the whole scene, road, trees, fog, barn. After a few minutes the local sheriff turns up. The farmer who owns the barn has complained you are taking the picture. The Sheriff confiscates your film, tells you can't take the picture and tells you to move on or be arrested. The photogrpher has no legal recourse.

Nothing particularly logical about that--it can happen today--or not. A police officer can pretty much decide today, regardless of the interpretation of D'Amario, that anyone is disturbing the peace and tell him to move along.

Nor, regardless of the interpretation of D'Amario, would it permit the officer to do anything more than that (unless the person resisted), and regardless of the interpretation of D'Amario would it permit the officer to confiscate the film unless there was reason to believe it could provide evidence in a criminal investigation.

[tim atherton]

Nor, regardless of the interpretation of D'Amario, would it permit the officer to do anything more than that (unless the person resisted), and regardless of the interpretation of D'Amario would it permit the officer to confiscate the film unless there was reason to believe it could provide evidence in a criminal investigation.

If Federal Security Officers can order you to delete images from your digital camera, then I think all bets are already off

[cyrus]

What the judge is saying is that the basic act of taking a photograph is not an "enumerated right" specifically protected by the Constitution as are, for example, the freedom of the press and the freedom of peaceful assembly. He's not willing to go into "umbras" of the enumerated rights, either (although Cyrus is basically arguing that photography falls into the "umbra" of the freedom of speech).

The fact that the first amendment is not limited to protecting just "speech" and "press" and instead protects "expression" generally - including photography, arm bands, t-shirt slogans, flag burning is already well established law and unquestionable.

My only concern was over the D'amario rationale of treating the creation of a photograph separately from the expression of photography. D'Amario seems to support that view by one reading - but there are cases that go the other way, and also it doesn't make logical sense either. As you say, the case probably limited to a right to access and not right to photograph generally & I hope youre right.

And while the police can arbitrarily use a "disturbing the peace" claim to try to prevent photography, he cannot do so legally & he certainly cannot take your camera and erase photos. Take his badge number and complain.

A lot of these sorts of "disturbing the peace" sorts of laws were intended to allow the police to harass general "trouble makers" when there was no legal way to hassle them. FOr example, we have anti-loitering laws in some states: you're committing a crime by just standing on the street, doing nothing. These laws are specifically directed against the homeless - and are almost always held to be unconstitutional when challenged.

[cyrus]

Well, that is the difference, I might get in arguments here where it does not cost anything and has no relevance. If I am going to spend money I try not to do it in a fools errand. By all means waste your money an time....no skin off my nose.

Well you needn't worry about the money issue either. According to the law, when a state govt official, acting in his capacity as a state official, deprives you of a constitutional right, you can be compensated for your attorney's fees if you sue him and "prevail" (not necessarily "win".) This is generally known as section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Why? Because the legislature wants you to assert and protect your rights, not to sheepishly accept the violations of your rights because of the financial risks of filing a suit.

But if you think that your rights are irrelevant, well that's your opinion & thus your business not mine.

[kmgibbs]

Hmmm...got me!

Oh wait...because I read their rules?

You really have no case here. You have not been denied any 'rights' because you have not applied and been rejected.

I read it to and it seems to me that their only goal is to know who is doing what, where, when and how. No cost, free escort, right of appeal. Sounds pretty easy to me.


Just so everyone is on the same page about the rules regarding photography of the PATH system here they are:

IX. Photography and similar activity. (emphasis mine)
A. The taking or making of photographs of any portion of the PATH system is prohibited except as provided herein.

B. The taking or making of films, video recordings, and drawings or other visual depictions are subject to the same prohibitions, restrictions and procedures as are applicable to photography.

C. Photography which involves any of the following must comply with the requirements of the Extended Photography Policy and Procedures, in addition to these Rules:
1. Exclusive use of any area or any railcar or part of a railcar.
2. Exclusion of members of the public, PATH or Port Authority personnel, or PATH or Port Authority contractors from any area or any railcar or part of a railcar.
3. Use of equipment other than handheld equipment with self-contained power sources.

D.
1. No person may take a photograph of any portion of the PATH system unless he or she is accompanied by a representative of PATH.
2. No photograph shall be taken of any specific location, device or structure if such representative advises that such photography is prohibited because it will create an image which could be used to aid in the planning of an attempt to disable, destroy, avoid or circumvent any operational, safety, security, evacuation or emergency response device, structure or procedure, or which could be used in the planning of an attempt to commit an act of violence or intentionally cause disruption of rail service or public panic within the PATH system or a part thereof. If possible, a suggestion for alternative photography in PATH which would not have such an effect shall be made by the PATH representative.
3. A photographer and all members of his or her party shall follow the directions of such representative made for the purpose of preventing unreasonable interference with PATH operations, maintenance and construction, and to preserve the health and safety of the photographer or others.
4. A photographer may protest any direction made pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) in the same manner as an appeal from the denial of a permit as set forth herein.

E. No person may take any photograph within PATH unless he or she has been issued a permit therefore by PATH as set forth herein.
1. A permit application shall be submitted in writing no later than thirty-six (36) hours preceding the commencement of the activities for which the permit is sought, and no earlier than seven (7) days preceding the commencement of the activities for which the permit is sought.
2. Permit application shall be submitted in person to the PATH Permit Administrator, or the designee thereof, during the hours of 9:00 AM to 10:30 AM and 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
3. The permit application shall set forth the type, time, location and duration of activities to be conducted, and the name, address and telephone number of the person making the request (in the case of a group, it shall be sufficient to supply the name, address, and telephone number of the person who can be contacted if problems arise concerning the granting of the request). If a person making the application indicates an affiliation with an organization or group, the name and address of a local representative of the organization or group to act as a liaison will be requested; however, refusal to provide such information shall not be grounds for denial of a permit.
4. Permits will be granted on a first-come, first serve basis depending on the availability of escorts. An application will be denied in whole or in part only if: (a) the presence of visitors in a requested location would unreasonably interfere with PATH operations, maintenance and construction; (b) if the conduct cannot be performed without creating an image which could be used to aid in the planning of an attempt to disable, destroy, avoid or circumvent any operational, safety, security, evacuation or emergency response device, structure or procedure, or which could be used in the planning of an attempt to commit an act of violence or intentionally cause disruption of rail service or public panic within the PATH system or a part thereof; (c) if the location requested may not be visited safely by persons other than PATH or other operation, construction or maintenance personnel; (d) the application is incomplete; or, (e) the application discloses that the activities to be performed thereunder will violate these Rules.
5. A permit will be issued, or the application denied, by the PATH Permit Administrator or a designee thereof, no later than 5:00 PM of the day following submission of the application, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays recognized by PATH. The reason for the denial of an application or any part thereof shall be set forth in writing.
6. (a) Upon the denial of any application for a permit, or the failure to issue a
permit by 5:00 PM of the day following submission of the application, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays recognized by PATH, the applicant may submit a written appeal to the PATH General Manager, or a designee thereof, setting forth the reasons why the application should be granted.
(b) An appeal shall be submitted in person to the PATH Permit Administrator, or a designee thereof, during the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The PATH Permit Administrator, or the designee thereof, shall cause the appeal to be delivered to the General Manager, or a designee thereof.
7. A written decision denying the appeal, or issuing a permit, shall be made no later than 5:00 PM of the day following submission of the appeal, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays recognized by PATH. If no decision is issued by 5:00 PM of the day following submission of the appeal, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays recognized by PATH, the appeal shall be deemed to be denied on the basis of the original decision denying the application.
8. A decision made in response to an application for a permit or an appeal of a denial of a permit shall not disclose information which could be used to aid in the planning of an attempt to disable, destroy, avoid or circumvent any operational, safety, security, evacuation or emergency response device, structure or procedure, or which could be used in the planning of an attempt to commit an act of violence or intentionally cause disruption of rail service or a public panic within the PATH system or a part thereof.
9. Any person whose application for a permit has been denied may seek review of the final decision denying such application in a proceeding commenced pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules of the State of New York, or action in lieu of prerogative writ in the courts of the State of New Jersey.
10. The General Manager of PATH, or in his or her absence, the person designated to act in his or her stead for general management purposes, may withdraw or suspend a permit for photography in the event of, and during the pendency of, an emergency condition such as a snowstorm, fire, accident, power failure, transportation carrier schedule interruption, or other condition of such nature and character that the conduct of permitted activities would cause a danger to persons or property during the pendency of such emergency condition.
11. For the purpose of this regulation, "holidays" refers to the days set forth in VII (D) (13) above.

Knock yourself out Cyrus

[kmgibbs]

Now, if you want to know WHY the permit requirements are unconstitutional, that's the next issue.

So educate me. What points or requirements of the permit system are unconstitutional? Enumerate them. If you can't explain them to me how do you ever expect to explain them to a jury?

What does the PATH system require that is unconstitutional? Is there some specific requirement that is in your opinion unconstitutional? Or is the the whole permit system that sticks in your craw?