“How Dare You Photograph the VP Without Permission!”
No, that remark wasn’t actually made. But based on what happened it might as well have been.
It seems the VP attended a domestic violence event recently. A student from the University of Maryland, Jeremy Barr – who is also an accredited journalist for the Capital News Service – attended. He was covering the event.
Barr took pictures. So did some of the other people around him.
After the event, Barr was approached by a member of the VPs staff. That staffer demanded to see his camera – and deleted his photos. He also demanded to see Barr’s iPhone to ensure Barr had not downloaded any of the photos to that device.
Barr was further detained another 10 minutes because the staffer needed to “talk to a supervisor”. Then he was permitted to go.
The VP’s press office later apologized, saying that the incident had been “a mistake”. Of course, they only did so after the dean of the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism, Lucy A. Daglish, called them with a complaint.
“A mistake.” Certainly. Everybody knows you can’t take photos at a public event held in a public place. How dare he!
Why, Barr should just be glad he wasn’t sent to a closet to cool his heels. Or prevented from talking to members of the public at the event. Oh wait – sorry, those were “mistakes” by the VP’s staffers, too.
Daglish had a rather dim view of the incident, calling it “intimidation”. Barr’s editor thinks that Barr has a good case if he wants to sue.
I have to agree with both. Although I’d personally probably use a somewhat earthier term than “intimidation” to describe what happened here.
Category: "Teh Stoopid", Media
I’m afraid the staffer would have been told to pound sand.
Ourr founding fathers never had or even knew what a digital camera was when they wrote the First Amendment. Therfore, Barr is not protected the the First Amendment. If he was using oil paints to make a painting or a piece of charcoal and paper to make a sketching, then he would clearly be protected. /sarc off
They can “demand” all they want, and if the guy was dumb enough to let them touch his personal property and delete his pictures, than it’s his own fault for letting them.
And had this been VP Cheney, the MSM would be screaming about this from the rooftops of the NYT building for weeks.
Now? Crickets.
Kiss the ring of the emperor and pledge total obedience…or be subjected to Bam’s Jedi Mind Meld.
Did he not get the emporers memo on “cooperation” between members of the media and the exuctive branch?
What fucking country am I living in?
A good file recovery tool should bring those pictures right back up off the memory card, as long as he didn’t take more pictures after the VPs’ people “erased” them. I’d be happy to help out on that!
I got this in 1992 at a Barbara Boxer event–one of her staffers demanded my camera.
I gave her my best goofy psychotic grin.
She then went to security and accused me of making a threat upon her person. Everyone there testified that I didn’t say a word to her, and that she seemed a bit…touched, shall we say…in the head. Female issues, no doubt. The security people nodded sagely and left me alone.
A student from the University of Maryland, Jeremy Barr – who is also an accredited journalist for the Capital News Service – attended. He was covering the event.
This is a pet peeve of mine, so I’m gonna rant for a minute here. “Accredited Journalist” is a fancy name for someone who works for a newspaper or TV or Radio station who has an ID card from their employer. What it is NOT is a special class of citizen with more rights and privileges than you or I. As far as I am concerned he could have been an accredited plumber from Rotorooter, and he’d still have the same protections from the First Amendment. We do NOT live in a caste system where your place of employment grants you special First Amendment protections. You have those protections because you are an American Citizen. And we need to fight like hell to keep people from falling into this trap.
Every time I hear “are you a member of the Press?” I want to slap the taste out of the speakers mouth. Where I work is immaterial. Freedom of the “Press” refers to a PRINTING press, not some job. And Freedom of the Press was not written into the Constitution to protect printers, it was to allow ANYONE who wanted to print a newspaper or broadsheet or pamphlet to do so and NOT have the government shut them down for their content.
A simple GO BY for photography: 1. If you have right to be there, you have a right to see it. That includes photo, video, and other recordings. Typical places include places open to the public, sidewalks, airports, a gathering of reporters covering an event, etc … Places that can be excluded are private property where the owner and or leasee controls use rights. 2. This right IS protected by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. 3. No one can tell you that you can’t take photos if you have permission to be there and there is no restriction on photography. 4. No one can seize, inspect, and order another to erase photos. A warrant is required for LE to even view what is on a camera and such photos are still the protected property of the owner (if legally obtained). 5. Right to be. Right to see. This is the bottom line! I would certainly hire a lawyer on this one … particularly since the ommission was immediate and the violation was clear! From WIKI: Local, state, and national laws may exist pertaining to photographing or videotaping. Laws that are present may vary from one jurisdiction to the next, and may be stricter in some places and more lenient in others, so it is important to know the laws present in one’s location. Typical laws in the United States are as follows: [edit] Public propertyIt is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property.[39] Photographing or videotaping a tourist attraction, whether publicly or privately owned, is generally considered legal, unless explicitly prohibited by posted signs. “Mus Chairil Samani, et al. “Freedom Of Photography – The Malaysian Scenario: A Vital Element Of Press Freedom.” Asian Social Science 8.5 (2012): 38-45. Academic Search Premier.” [edit] Private propertyPhotography may be prohibited or restricted within an area of property by the property owner.[39] At the same time, a property owner generally cannot restrict the photographing of the property by individuals who are not located within the bounds of the property.[39] Photography on private property that is generally open… Read more »
In 2004 during a Bush campaign visit, two of our local liberals were arrested for protesting by carrying anti-Bush signs. The local authorities were trying to get them to move to a place where the King, er, President wouldn’t have to see them. Arrested them for being in a public place committing no crime. It ain’t just the Democrats….
Actually, Al–they can be arrested for failing to follow LEO direction. Public disturbance, etc., and a few others.
When Mister Po-Po asks you to move when you’re being an asshat, you probably shouldn’t up the ante.
Such was not (or at least apprears not) to be the case here.
Nice try, though.
@ Al T. They were arrested for unlawful assembly, as I remember. Most jurisdictions have laws and codes regarding assembly and protests. In this case they were removed in part becuase it was a safety issue and perhaps they did not properly apply for and obtain permits to protest in a manner consistant with local law.
No big deal … no big conspiracy either!
Even the king’s jester get special treatment. Doesn;t need to make any sense or be remotely legal.
It’s all about what they want and when they want it. How dare this child antagonize the jester! Not only did he apparently not read the memo, evidently he mislaid his crystal ball for the day.
@12. I am interested in learning where “local” is because I doubt very much that anyone was arrested for carrying a sign. Instead, the two likely were arrested for failing to protest in the designated protest area or, if they refused to relocate, for failure to obey a police officer. The event described in this post is altogether different from a public demonstration.
Gaaaaaaaaaaaad Damit. I am anonymous in 16.
I have rules about my cameras:
Rule #4 – Don’t let anyone else touch it. EVER!!!!
I stopped my car just beyond a bridge on Rt. 41 and walked back to the bridge to photograph some black swans in the river. Stupid thing to do on a busy highway, but I wanted that shot. While I’m walking back to my car, a local police person stopped and asked me what I was doing, so I showed him the photos. He did NOT ask me for my camera. But he told me he had to report each stop he made and asked for my license, to which I have no objection. I have nothing to hide.
This ‘photographer’ (and I use that term loosely) should have known enough to tell that self-important clown to go pound sand, because he was on assignment. Since he was using an iPhone, he should also have sent his images to the Cloud as soon as each was shot.
Excuse me while I try to stop laughing. Using a fucking iPhone to shoot press photos instead of a real camera? Yeah, I’d like to see his press credentials myself.
THIS is a camera. http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25464/D300S.html
I have photographed plenty of politicians.
There is NO rule against photographing public officials or public figures unless it is POSTED IN A PUBLIC NOTICE. If you couldn’t do it, there wouldn’t be any paparazzi.
Barr should definitely sue the veep, and his idiot staffer.
Ex-PH2: he wasn’t using his iPhone to take the photographs. A different account of the incident stated that the staffer wanted to see the iPhone after he’d seen the camera, allegedly to ensure he hadn’t downloaded any of the photos from his camera to that device.
MikeD: while what you say is in general true in Federal law and for photographs taken lawfully, there are a couple of things journalists may be able to get away with that the rest of us cannot.
Most citizens can be compelled to testify in court, and must divulge sources of information given to us when under oath. However, journalists have a degree of limited protection when it comes to being forced to reveal sources that the general public does not.
There is no Federal “shield law” allowing journalists to maintain source confidentiality. However, although the SCOTUS has ruled there is no general right of a journalist to maintain absolute source confidentiality, the ruling was quite narrow. In general Federal courts require showing a compelling reason before they will order such disclosure. Absent such a compelling reason, Federal courts often if not generally permit journalists to maintain source confidentiality.
State courts are a different story. Many, states have “shield laws” allowing varying degrees of journalist source protection. And even in some states that don’t, the courts in that state may recognize at least a limited form of such a right to source protection.
Hondo, some of these digital cameras are hardwired to allow the user to send all images to a safe place, e.g., e-mail or the Cloud, with a wireless connection in the program. It does not require a flash drive or a physical connection such as a USB cable. If you have an internet account, you can e-mail those images to yourself in a folder. Thus, they can’t be deleted. Or you can simply upload them via the internet to a computer. The only requirement is a wireless WT-4 transmitter that acts as an antenna.
Were I doing news photography now, that is exactly what I would opt for. And if Barr actually were a photographer, he’d know about that.
Ex-PH2: the articles imply (but don’t state outright) that Barr’s a journalism student at UMd. If so, he’s probably still “learning the ropes” of his profession and might not have known that. Or maybe he did but couldn’t yet afford one of the higher-end cameras with that feature.
However, that also explains why the staffer wanted to see his iPhone. I’m pretty sure some/all iPhones have the technical capability to act as a local wireless “hot spot”. Perhaps the staffer was checking for that and/or image transfer using a USB cable.
And I wouldn’t think that poorly of someone using a consumer digital camera, either. Even fairly cheap digital cameras today take pretty good photos. I’ve seen refurbished 16MP (4608 x 3456, 16:9) w/8x optical and 6x digital zoom for well under $100. Some of them aren’t much bigger than an iPhone, either.
I can’t wait until they release the Google Glass. Try telling the wearers they can’t use THOSE at a public event.
State courts are a different story. Many, states have “shield laws” allowing varying degrees of journalist source protection. And even in some states that don’t, the courts in that state may recognize at least a limited form of such a right to source protection.
Hondo, I recognize that various States HAVE passed such laws, and it infuriates me. You are a blogger, if you have a confidential source pass you information, you are engaging in activities consistent with a free press when you blog about those things. That makes you “the press”. You don’t need a J school diploma, or an ID badge from the local newspaper to be “the press”. You are “the press” by virtue of your activity. In my opinion, any law written to provide additional protections to citizens on the basis of their employer are unconstitutional on the basis of equal protection under the law. “The press” is not a special class of citizen, it is ALL citizens. And this nonsense that because Joe Schumckatelli the local beat reporter’s employer is a certain TV, radio, or newspaper he’s got civil rights that you and I do not is a load of horse crap.
@23 – Google GLASS? One restaurant is banning it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/google-glass-ban-privacy-concerns_n_2856385.html
Actually, MikeD – while I generally agree with your sentiment, that’s not how the courts seems to see it these days. At least one Federal court has recently held that “bloggers” (whatever the hell that means these days) do not qualify for the same protections as “members of the press” when it comes to source confidentiality. Personally, the distinction escapes me.
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/12/crystal_cox_oregon_blogger_isn.php
I personally think the Federal courts have it right on the issue. There, the general policy seems to be if a fact is material at trial and cannot be reasonably obtained in any other way, journalistic source confidentiality is trumped and disclosure is compulsory. There is an argument for some degree of source protection for the press, but that argument should never trump basic justice.
And I really don’t see why “some journalists are more equal than others”, to apply Orwell’s famous phrase to Hermandez’s ruling.
You got to be one super punk bitch to get punked by a political staffer. I almost don’t feel bad for this guy.
I think they must have been afraid that he caught Biden doing stupid, which isn’t hard. Personally, I think the more and more evidence is gathered against him and his idiot behavior it should be put out in the media. For fuck’s sake what is it going to take? How much more is it going to take?
Hondo, I have an 8gig flash drive that will hold the equivalent of 4 full photo cards from my camera.
I can get a card reader that will plug directly into a notebook and download all images, then transfer them to the flash drive. The flash drive in its case is the size of my thumb. I can carry as many of them in my pocket as it will hold and they cost about $10 at Staples.
I can’t understand how anyone who is tech-savvy would not take advantage of all these things that are available, even if he’s an amateur. I know amateur nature photographers that grab any piece of techgear they can get their hands on.
If you think the people who load up on battle rattle are gear queers, they have nothing on nature shooters or astrophotographers. I know people who will hook their Dobsonian scopes up to a cheap camera with a CCD or CMOS drive and spend hours getting photos of comets and nebulae that are as good as anything an observatory can turn out, at nearly no cost.
It ain’t the equipment, it’s the operator. You know that already.
All this guy had to do was take the card out of his camera and put in a blank and tell the staffer to piss off home. Total amateur. If it’s about catching the veep doing something embarrassing, he does that almost 24 hours a day, doesn’t he?
Ex-PH2: no argument he could have done things very differently in any number of ways – to include pocketing the SD or XD card (both are still reasonably common) before even standing up. My guess is the guy was caught off-guard by the staffer while leaving, was young and naive (and thus didn’t immediately realize he could and should tell the staffer to piss off), and simply didn’t want to make a scene. The article says as much.
It was apparently only later – after he’d talked to a few folks – that he realized he’d been had.
I would love to have a chance to shoot pix of the veep scratching himself or using that booger hook of his in its proper occupation.
However, should I do that, I will make sure I have something on me that says ‘piss off’ to any and all staffers. Or else, like the paparazzi, I’ll do it from afar.