Photography Is Not A Crime – Cameras Are The New Guns

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested.

Check out the full Story – HERE

Absolutely insane that laws like this were able to pass. Police are public servants who are being paid to enforce the law.  Pretty disgusting that some of them think they can break the law and suffer no consequences.

If you want to raise your blood pressure check out the Photography is Not A Crime blog – HERE


8 responses to “Photography Is Not A Crime – Cameras Are The New Guns”

  1. That’s truly nuts! So we’re supposed to submit to red-light cameras, tollroad cameras, robotic radar cameras for speeding tickets, and multiple surveillance cameras in many urban areas (including my own DFW), and dashboard cameras – but taking a picture of a cop can earn you a ride downtown?

    1. Admin (Mike) Avatar
      Admin (Mike)

      I know… It’s hard to believe that something so stupid could get you arrested. That’s what happens I guess when you give individuals too much power.

  2. Phaedrus Avatar

    As a photographer myself, this recent phenomenon is just pissing me off. If one is a public servant in a public space with no expectation of privacy, and are doing your job right, one has nothing to fear. It seems to me laws are going this way to protect abusive officers. I have nothing against law enforcement, but it seems like a little bit of a double standard that some people use about public surveillance. The old “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” argument.

    1. Admin (Mike) Avatar
      Admin (Mike)

      Yea it’s gotta make your job a lot more difficult. It seems like this whole “I’m a cop, you can’t take a picture of me” thing just snowballed out of control lately. The whole paradigm probably spread quickly amongst law enforcement mainly due to the internet.

  3. Josh G Avatar

    That argument, Phaedrus, they use often when citizens assert their rights to refuse a search. Usually followed by, “Well, let me call the K-9 unit it might take hours to get here”.

    1. Admin (Mike) Avatar
      Admin (Mike)

      heh yea the K-9 unit threat is a classic one.

  4. Jon V. Avatar

    Wait how the hell did this pass? I thought that as long as I was on my own property or public property consent laws can choke on a dick. I mean, what happens with security camera footage? Journalists covering police activities? What about the concept of citizen journalists, freedom of the press, or our duty to watch those who watch us?

    1. Admin (Mike) Avatar
      Admin (Mike)

      who knows Jon. Pretty sad state of affairs, when the people that are paid to protect are not held accountable.