Does The NYPD Really Think That Shooting Photos/Videos Of Protests Is 'Disorderly Conduct?'

from the censorship-at-its-finest dept

Thu, Sep 29th 2011 9:37am — Mike Masnick

The mess in NYC with the way the NYPD are handling the whole "Occupy Wall Street" situation continues. We've already covered the story of the police falsely claiming that video evidence of an incident where an officer (Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna) pepper sprayed women did not show the full story. In those posts, we highlighted the importance of photographic and video evidence from people around the incident, and noted how important the right to film police is for a functioning democracy. Now there's increasing evidence that the NYPD targeted people reporting on, videotaping or filming the police, in making a bunch of arrests.

Reporter John Farley, working for WNET MetroFocus -- which is part of New York's PBS station -- wrote the story after being arrested himself, on "disorderly conduct" charges. What was his disorderly conduct? Apparently it was attempting to interview some of those women who were pepper sprayed by Bologna. He properly identified himself to the police as a reporter, but they did not care. He was still arrested and spent nine hours in custody. While some of the others in custody with him were, in fact, protestors, some were merely bystanders trying to record what was going on. He notes two such stories. The first is of a guy who was working at a cafe right by the pepper spray incident:

The arrest of my cell mate, Sam Queary, 24, adds another dimension to the issue: that of the inadvertent, spontaneous citizen journalist. Queary happened to be at work at Grey Dog Cafe near Union Square when the protesters marched by.

�I heard a commotion and went outside to find cops macing women and arresting people and hitting people with nightsticks, so I started taking pictures,� said Queary. �I followed a young, black male as he was being accosted by five cops. As I tried to take a picture I was pushed away. I asked why I was pushed away and then the next thing you know I was being judo flipped.�

The second involved a woman who just pulled out her camera phone as events were unfolding in front of her, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the protest:

I also met Rosa A., 33, in the police van while we were being transported to the 1st Precinct for processing. She had been shopping at the Barnes and Noble on Union Square when she saw the protesters outside. As many New Yorkers do when they see something unusual, she snapped a picture. And she was arrested.

�I�ve never been arrested,� said Rosa A., in visible pain from the plastic handcuffs. �I was just there looking at magazines.� She laughed, lightening the mood in the police van. Even our arresting officer, in the van with us, chuckled.

While an NYPD spokesperson has been telling the press that police did not target those with cameras, it's hard to understand any other reason for those three people being arrested and charged. Besides, given the fact that NYPD spokespeople talking about this incident have already had their credibility destroyed by the video evidence, it's tough to take those claims seriously. Even if the police weren't officially targeting people with cameras, as Farley noted, they didn't seem to make any attempt to distinguish protesters from bystanders or press:

I don�t know precisely why I was arrested, though I have been charged with disorderly conduct. But what I realized is that in a sudden burst of urban chaos, how can the police distinguish between passersby and protesters who may be committing civil disobedience or any other type of punishable offense? Or between citizen journalists and professional journalists?

In the past, we've seen police use "disorderly conduct" charges against those who film them. It's a nice catch-all that police can use to arrest almost anyone. Perhaps we should be looking to fix the law that allows arrests on "disorderly conduct" when such a law seems to be regularly abused by police to target those who are respecting the law, but doing things the police just don't like?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anthony bologna, disorderly conduct, evidence, journalism, nypd, occupy wall street

60 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 9:52am

"disorderly conduct" AKA "Whatever you're doing that we don't like".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  Disorderly conduct, aka contempt of cop.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 1:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    In most cases, warranted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 9:52am

But ... but ... but ... shooting film actually shoots people. When you shoot someone with a camera that's considered illegal use of firearms. You can only use such firearms in an authorized recreational establishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DOlz (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 1:44pm
  
  Re:
  No you're not shooting them, you're stealing their souls. Therefore instead of being charged with disorderly conduct they should be charged with theft.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > you're not shooting them, you're stealing their souls. Therefore
    > instead of being charged with disorderly conduct they should
    > be charged with theft.
    
    Theft? Why aim low? Charge them with necromancy, then we can burn them!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 9:59am

Well, actually, it could be considered disorderly conduct if the person shooting the video is "part of the protestors" and refuses to move into the "controlled" area.

Running around on the street and blocking traffic just to shoot a video could be considered disorderly conduct.

Obstructing the officer, getting in the way, or causing the officer to have to stop and deal with your blocking traffic or inciting others could be considered disorderly conduct.

There are plenty of example. Mike, you just have no imagination. Remember, all of this stuff happens in the real world, not in a classroom exercise or as some theoretical challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:05am
  
  Re:
  Or it could be disorderly conduct if the police just dont like you. Or if you are recording something that they do not want recorded. If they want your footage then that is the best way to get it. Especially since they arrested a reporter who identified himself as such.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hmm (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 1:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Or could just be that the police officer is an evil racist intent on doing everything he can to....(CLICK) no wait what am I saying? all police are lovely and nice and never hurt anyone that didn't deserve it...and they in NO WAY have a tazer pointed at my testic (BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ AARRRGHHH)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 7:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Here is Some Footage of the NYPD, a couple of videos I hadn't seen yet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:13am
  
  Re:
  "Disorderly conduct" can mean looking at a police officer funny. It really all depends on how you look.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  "There are plenty of example. Mike, you just have no imagination."
  
  Whereas you apparently have far too much imagination. Serious question: are you fucking kidding me? They were arrested for snapping pictures. The most egregious aspect of this story is both the PBS dude identifying himself and still geting canned, followed by the innocent woman who snapped a photo and then got tossed in the van only to have the arresting officer chuckle at the fact that SHOULDN'T OF FUCKING BEEN THERE!!!
  
  Holy shit, I'm going to start completely losing control here. The transparency in all this is so clear, it's amazing, yet we still get comments like these. The Mayor told them he wants the protests busted and wanted as little video running on the news as possible. The police are making shit up to comply with this order. This is so abundantly clear, it might as well be from one of those Ghostbusters movies where the NYC Mayor does nearly the same thing.
  
  Let me make this clear: With regards to protecting the people in this country, the press have become more important than the police. Think about the ridiculousness of that for a moment, and you'll realize how much trouble we're all in....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Damn you DH, you're using too much logic. I'm arresting you on thoughtcrimes! And if you record these words, that's another 5 years!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hell, I'm already doing life on this planet. Why not spend that life sentence getting a life sentence in jail.
      
      Yo dawg, we heard you like imprisonment, so we imprisoned you inside a prison in your prison!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 8:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You never know, maybe one day we will all have space shuttles and be able to expand onto other planets.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Bergman (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 3:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You shouldn't take life too seriously. After all, you'll never get out of it alive!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chosen Reject (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    With regards to protecting the people in this country, the press have become more important than the police. Think about the ridiculousness of that for a moment, and you'll realize how much trouble we're all in....
    This isn't too surprising to me, nor do I think the founding fathers would think this at all a bad thing. To the contrary, I think many of the founding fathers thought that was the way it was supposed to be. Combine these two things:
    
    1) Freedom of speech and of the press is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, right next to the right to bear arms, both of which were meant to keep the government afraid of the people. Limiting what the government can search of yours is only one amendment down, and the right not to incriminate yourself is just another right down from that.
    
    2) Benjamin Franklin's quote about liberty and security, in which he says that if you're willing to give up a little bit of the freedom of press, you'll not only be less secure, but you'll also have less freedoms.
    
    Given those two, I believe the founding fathers absolutely meant for the press to be what protected us. Keep in mind also, that in their day, they had no conception of some professional journalists being the press. To them, the press was simply the ability to publish. The first amendment protects freedom of speech and the press as two different ways for all citizens to express their ideas, not as speech rights given to everybody and some separate rights given to journalists.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 1:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This is how the police came to be "The Pigs" back in the sixties and the Vietnam war protests. Same methods, same reasons, and eventually, same results.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Helmet, please. You notice there is video and pictures of the police, and none of the actions of these other people?
    
    We could have CCTV... oh wait, your precious first amendment says we really shouldn't. So the public can record the cops, but hide their own bad acts because it wouldn't be constitutional. NICE!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wait, the videos and pictures that show the police don't also show the people (also in the videos and pictures) being unduly harassed by the police? OMG!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - hmm (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 5:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thats because the protesters and nearby "others" have taken their love of twilight too far and become invisible on film
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ron Rezendes (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "We could have CCTV... oh wait, your precious first amendment says we really shouldn't. So the public can record the cops, but hide their own bad acts because it wouldn't be constitutional. NICE!"
      
      I'm calling you out on this, that statement is 100% baseless and an outright lie:
      
      http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/surveillance_cams_report_121306.pdf
      
      NEIGHBORHOOD CAMERA COUNTS, 1998 AND 2005
      1998 2005
      District 1* (Financial District, Tribeca) 446 1306
      District 2 (Greenwich Village, SoHo) 142 2227
      District 3 (Lower East Side, Chinatown) 181 643
      Central Harlem N/A 292
      TOTAL 769 4468
      
      Would you like to try again?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  "Well, actually, it could be considered disorderly conduct if the person shooting the video is "part of the protestors" and refuses to move into the "controlled" area.
  
  Running around on the street and blocking traffic just to shoot a video could be considered disorderly conduct.
  
  Obstructing the officer, getting in the way, or causing the officer to have to stop and deal with your blocking traffic or inciting others could be considered disorderly conduct."
  
  Yes. We could sit here and think on loads of things that could get someone arrested for disorderly conduct. But we are trying to analyse a few specific instances here.
  
  "There are plenty of example. Mike, you just have no imagination."
  
  Yes, let's try analysing the ones that are in front of us, shall we?
  
  "Remember, all of this stuff happens in the real world, not in a classroom exercise or as some theoretical challenge."
  
  Of course it isn't a theoretical exercise. Why are you trying to turn it into one then?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Your point? Sorry, just kidding!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josef Anvil (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:34am
  
  Re: Let's go with this line of reasoning...
  Assuming that our AC is correct and that there are all of those instances of "disorderly conduct"...
  
  Isn't it "dereliction of duty" for an officer to stop to arrest someone for a misdemeanor while more serious crimes or felonies are in progress in front of them?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 7:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Let's go with this line of reasoning...
    It's dereliction of dooty to them
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 3:31am
    
    Re: Re: Let's go with this line of reasoning...
    If gathering photographic data is disorderly conduct, then all crime scene investigators are criminals.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:46am
  
  Re:
  Freedom of assembly is a right not a priviledge. Close the streets to traffic is the crowd is so large that it's a problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Rights
    > Freedom of assembly is a right not a priviledge.
    > Close the streets to traffic is the crowd is so large that
    > it's a problem.
    
    Um, no.
    
    People's right to assemble does not mean they have the right paralyze traffic in a city, as if the rights of the other 3 million people going about their lives don't matter.
    
    And when you paralyze traffic, you also paralyze the ability of emergency vehicles (ambulances, fire trucks, etc.) to respond to incidents where loss of life is a potentiality.
    
    Your right to assemble doesn't trump my right to not have my house burn down or my neighbor's right to get to a hospital if he has a heart attack.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 4:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Rights
      What's the point of 'right to assemble' if it can be tossed for 'blocking traffic'? Right to assemble absolutely involves impeding traffic, that's a time-honoured method going back centuries.
      
      Now, in a specific case where people can be proven to have caused actual harm by impeding emergency response vehicles, you can deal with them individually...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 9:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Rights
        > What's the point of 'right to assemble' if it can be tossed
        > for 'blocking traffic'?
        
        If you think the right to assemble means nothing if you can't put people's lives in danger by creating situation where police and fire can't respond, then I guess you'll have to resign yourself to the fact that your right to assemble means nothing, because the rest of us don't much feel like having our access to emergency services cut off because you feel like whining about global warming or amnesty for illegals or whatever else has put a burr in your panties this week.
        
        > Right to assemble absolutely involves impeding traffic,
        > that's a time-honoured method going back centuries.
        
        The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
        
        > Now, in a specific case where people can be proven to have
        > caused actual harm by impeding emergency response vehicles,
        > you can deal with them individually
        
        Or the city can make sure it doesn't happen in the first place. Which option do you think the family of the guy who died of a heart attack because the ambulance couldn't get to him would prefer?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  I know what you mean. For example walking in straight lines and turning at right angles would be ok, but running all over the place in squiggly lines and zigzagging, that's not very orderly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glen, 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:13am

Sounds like NYC should be relocated to the state of Illinois.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  no thanks we have Chicago which is better for a ridiculous amount of reasons. But ill give you just one, alleys, we dont have trash on the sidewalk and delivery trucks blocking every other street.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Agreed. I just can't imagine this city w/o alleys for trash, etc. It'd be like a person w/o veins...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 1:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Where is the alley for politicos?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Bergman (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 4:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        An alley for trash and an alley for politicians? Don't be redundant!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Any Mouse (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yeah, I'll take pictures for you next time I'm through there. No trash on the sidewalk or delivery trucks blocking streets? No idea what part of Chicago you're talking about!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:24am

Good luck America, you need it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:30am

Just shows...
the police are worried that they will be caught on tape beating the crap out of someone without provocation. Too many states (like Illinois) and cities want to prevent another Rodney King incident by forbidding anyone to tape the police doing anything.

The police will always find some way to arrest people that annoy them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy, 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:36am

Just what is disorderly conduct?
So I looked on wikipedia and it says disorderly conduct is

A typical definition of disorderly conduct defines the offense in these ways:
A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;

So are the cops actually guilty of disorderly conduct for arresting these people? It would seem to me they are disrupting a lawful assembly of persons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re: Just what is disorderly conduct?
  Thus, the air is redolent of bacon while this goes on, uncontested.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 4:20am
  
  Re: Just what is disorderly conduct?
  It's not terribly unusual for cops to charge their victims with the things that the cops did.
  
  A cop punches you repeatedly in the head without cause? You'll be charged with assaulting a police officer (your skull bruised his knuckles repeatedly).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
incase, 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:39am

No law and order in NY
When traditional police start doling out their own "justice", they undermine the very law and order they are charged with supporting.

The new "police" are the brave citizens with cameras collecting evidence for the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 10:55am

State sponsered oppression of the people!
It seems that the politicians and NYPD somehow missed the lessons of "the Arab summer". If their goal is a full blown revolt they are right on target. I have never been a militant 2nd amendment or NRA proponent but this just may be my tipping point. I never thought I would condone the populace arming themselves for the purpose of self defense from police, but now it seems imperative in NYC. If the federal government doesn't reign in local police abuses we are headed for a full scale revolt by the masses and it won't be pretty or limited to local authorities. Is that the goal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Nemesh, 29 Sep 2011 @ 12:33pm
  
  Re: State sponsered oppression of the people!
  Arming yourself against the government is WHY the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place! Its not so we can defend ourselves from the Russians or the Chinese...its to protect ourselves from our often overreaching government!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:02pm
    
    Re: Re: State sponsered oppression of the people!
    I don't currently own a firearm. I think I need to correct that mistake, and soon.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:09am

"Disorderly"
http://falkvinge.net/2011/07/01/lawfully-good-lawfully-evil/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:44am

Since the mainstream media is failing us, I think Techdirt should put boots on the ground in NYC and report on this directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re:
  I second this motion.
  
  Time to buy a plane ticket Mike!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laura van Straaten, 29 Sep 2011 @ 12:49pm

extensive quotes used w/o permission/linkback
Hi Mike, Thanks for including John Farley of MetroFocus in your coverage of Occupy Wall Street. We are genuinely grateful to see this important issue get attention.

That being said, we would appreciate your making clear to your readers that the four paragraphs of reporting you pulled are from his original work as an editor on our staff: e.g. 'As John Farley writes in his first person account on MetroFocus' with a link to (www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/news/2011/09/observations-of-a-jailed-journalist/). Please also link to our home page (www.thirteen.org/metrofocus) with the first mention of MetroFocus.

Feel free to delete this comment as you wish and to reach out to me by email; my contact info is in the email I sent also to your site's 'Contact Us'/Media Relations a little while ago but to which no one has thus far replied. I also reached out via LinkedIn.

Thanks so much,
Laura van Straaten
Editor-in-Chief / Executive Producer
MetroFocus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- khory (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 1:02pm
  
  Re: extensive quotes used w/o permission/linkback
  Um, you do see the link to the original article don't you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Lockyear, 29 Sep 2011 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re: extensive quotes used w/o permission/linkback
  wtf! Does she know that this is TechDirt? This will probably get its own article...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re: extensive quotes used w/o permission/linkback
  Um, the link is already there, right before the quoted section. It was there when the story broke.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brandt Hardin, 29 Sep 2011 @ 1:17pm

Rise Against
The movement is gaining momentum after a week and a half and Occupy movements are popping up all over the country! Stand up together and use your voice to give to those without. Tax the rich and feed the poor- you are the 99%! See my Occupy Wall Street painting and Anonymous homage on my artist�s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/09/occupywallstreet.html where you can also see videos of the protests and police brutality as well as get other sources for coverage of the movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Sep 2011 @ 2:10pm

Unfortunately, looks like it's getting to be time for the American Spring
There's always a lot of ugliness associated with these types events, however necessary, but just where is the line to be drawn? Fortunately for me, I'm old, with a likely terminal medical condition, and thus have not got much to lose, except my children's' futures. I would think the time will probably come where the defense of our progeny's future is the only important matter in the world. Sad, lame, and enraging, all at the same time. The takeover of this country by the Banksters and their parasitic cronies, and their apologists is nearly complete, but it could still be interrupted, if not stopped completely. I'm afraid that the line I mentioned is "just over there", and the time will be soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2011 @ 3:53pm

Welcome to fascist USA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dean, 29 Sep 2011 @ 11:44pm

police arrests of photographers of demos
This is why we need the ACLU to sue the police for false arrests and the individual officers who violate the first amendment. I will be making a sizable contribution to the NYC ACLU for this very issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gar, 30 Sep 2011 @ 1:53am

Come one Americans, are you going to take this oppression any longer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jsf (profile), 30 Sep 2011 @ 6:44am

Of Course
Yes, many police officers, but not all or even a majority, think that think that taking photos, or videos, or reporting on things is disorderly conduct. This is because in their mind anything you are doing that they don't wnat you doing is disorderly conduct and/or obstruction of justice. It doesn't matter what the courts have said or what your rights actually are.

None of the above means that they are right however.

We also need to remember that not even a majority of police officers believe the above or support the kinds of actions that have happened. It really only takes a few bad officers in the right positions to make for really bad situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]