Banned from a Metro for Taping/Photographing

RogersDA

The video guys might have handled it better, but the rent-a-cops certainly are not aware of the laws. They seem to be making them up as they go along.

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/07/01/photographers-banned-for-life-from-metro-for-taking-pictures/

WillCAD

Despite their polite and cooperative attitudes on camera, these guys went to the Metro looking for a fight. This was a set up situation, designed to create a controversial video and confrontation with the security guards and police. What's missing from the video is what they did when they first arrived. Did they start shooting immediately, or did they hunt up one of the guards and start asking leading questions about access? The first video says, "We've been told by the guards that we won't be allowed access, but we're gonna go in and see what happens," so my guess is that there was some interaction with the guards upon arrival that isn't in the footage.

Because of their intention to create a confrontation, I don't count this as a "hobby photography denied" situation. It's more of a "paparazzi denied" situation.

Of course, the guards and the cops are equally to blame, since they are not only woefully ignorant of the laws they claim to be enforcing, but they don't care that they're woefully ignorant of the laws. All they care about is compliance with their orders.

Angelo

WillCAD wrote: »

Despite their polite and cooperative attitudes on camera, these guys went to the Metro looking for a fight. This was a set up situation, designed to create a controversial video and confrontation with the security guards and police....

Or they approached the situation much like a news crew might - wanting answers to unlawful actions on the part of the Metro personnel and subsequently the police officers.

WillCAD wrote: »

...What's missing from the video is what they did when they first arrived. Did they start shooting immediately, or did they hunt up one of the guards and start asking leading questions about access?...

What's also not known or shown here is what might have happened during previous visits to the station prompting a return armed with video camera to catch the inappropriate behavior of the guards.

I've participated in similar events here in Los Angeles. Here's how those were initiated and pan out: When it becomes known that a private security agency trains their guards to prevent anyone from taking photographs even in clearly legal public settings we head to those locations armed with printed collateral outlining the laws, and having consulted via telephone beforehand with the police department to be certain of our position. If an episode repeats in which guards illegally attempt to detain us or prevent photographic activity we challenge them and attempt to educate them on the law. Filming of the event is intended to protect us should anything physical develop.

It's unfortunate that these steps have become necessary but I have no qualms about doing so to protect my civil liberty.

.

RogersDA

The thing that bother me are that they stated they had the o.k. from the metro head that they could do this. A call from the security folks is all that was needed to confirm this, but the security folks don't know how to do this. Also the police did nothing even when provided with the copy of the law.

I am also not sure on the legality/enforceability of a private security's permanent ban from a public facility.

RogersDA

Here is a link to the photo's story and commentary:

http://stretchphotography.com/blog/2010.07.01/banned-from-metro/

Sam

Angelo wrote: »

Or they approached the situation much like a news crew might - wanting answers to unlawful actions on the part of the Metro personnel and subsequently the police officers.




What's also not known or shown here is what might have happened during previous visits to the station prompting a return armed with video camera to catch the inappropriate behavior of the guards.

I've participated in similar events here in Los Angeles. Here's how those were initiated and pan out: When it becomes known that a private security agency trains their guards to prevent anyone from taking photographs even in clearly legal public settings we head to those locations armed with printed collateral outlining the laws, and having consulted via telephone beforehand with the police department to be certain of our position. If an episode repeats in which guards illegally attempt to detain us or prevent photographic activity we challenge them and attempt to educate them on the law. Filming of the event is intended to protect us should anything physical develop.

It's unfortunate that these steps have become necessary but I have no qualms about doing so to protect my civil liberty.

.

Kudos!

Unfortunately today most people will just accept these things which just allows them to continue. You don't have to set up an encounter, but when confronted if you just let it go, you are then helping to perpetuate the problem.

Standing up for your rights is necessary to keep things in check, and in my opinion part of being a citizen.

You can do this without violence and looting.

Sam