It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New York Moves To Ban Public Filming And Photography

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

With vague reasoning and little explanation, moves are afoot in the city of New York to stamp out all forms of filming in public, be it by professional television crews, protestors or simply by tourists on sightseeing trips.

Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks, reports the New York Times.

Though the Mayor’s Office of Film has said that the new rules are not aimed at families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers, the enforcement would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in public for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance. The same ruling would also apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.


src: infowars.net...

The paranoia continues. You have to wonder whats next. What possible detail could you extract from photographing an object that arguably is probably all over the Internet or in some public brochure anyways. By removing the ability to film protests what evidence could you present to show any possible wrong doing by law enforcement.

brill




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
First off this is illegal as it is in direct violation of the first amendment.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

So, in turn, the constitution nullifies this law.

[edit on 6-30-2007 by CPYKOmega]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I can understand the reasoning behind this legislation. No-one wants all of NYC to be turned into a 24/7 filming studio. However, this thing probably could've been worded better.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Wheres the freewill, isnt america the land of the free?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   
An over-reaction to be sure.


But...

The availability, to the general public, of high-quality, high-resolution digital photography, coupled with the plethora of sophisticated photo-manipulation software on the market, make it possible to develop 3D digital scale "models" of virtually any location you can photograph.

Such models could then be used for planning purposes in various crimminal and terrorist schemes.


So, this is NYC...Once burned, twice paranoid!



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Yeah any photograph, image or even a drawing can be used to plot terrorist attack, let's just make it illegal to make any of those in public. You might have a photographic memory, let's just lobotomize everyone. You might even see a picture of a public place somewhere and plan an attack based on that, let's just... Where will it end?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
First off this is illegal as it is in direct violation of the first amendment.

So, in turn, the constitution nullifies this law.


You seem to be forgetting that we're in a "post 9/11" world.

In our "post 9/11" country; the constitution doesn't nullify laws; laws nullify the constitution.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I don't understand what the intent of this law is. Is it to discourage paparazzi? The permits are free, and can be obtained online, so the only other requirement is the insurance. But what would the insurance indemnify you against? Nuisance suits? Why would the city care if you got sued?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Been like this in London for some time now... As a photographer it bugs me, but what the heck, I just try to do my arhictectural shots with a tripod.
I think in this case it has been blown out of proportion due to the fact that we are dealing with New York here. I mean...in a roaring big city it would quickly become too chaotic with random crews setting up gear where ever they want to at any time they want to. Trust me, we photographers always need to have #load of gear with us when we take to doing shots on the street



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Is this for real?
I don't understand. Is this some kind of Nuisance Law or is it to cover everyone? I don't see how this could work and I dont' see how this could even be real.

If it's real .. it's strange.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Seriously... I don't think you should expect a total ban of photography as in you are prohibited to take pictures of the liberty las or the Brooklyn Bridge etc.

I think as you suggest that this is a nuissance law to prevent a situation from spiraling out of control. Imagine in this day and age where virtually anyone can afford a digi cam, and might have some friends who want to act how many little setups there would be in New York.
If was living there on a daily basis and didn't work with photography I think I would get pissed if every 5 steps some wannabe movie maker or photographer was taking up sidewalk space for several hours.


So don't worry... this will only affect us professionals and heck if we wanna use the streets we'll get that permit.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I just peeked at the New York Times article.

Unfortunately, like all other actions taken by the United States government to remove directly, or by circuitous legislation such as this, our Constitutional rights, there is nothing we can do about it.

In point of fact, if the United States government wanted to simply arrest people on sight for taking photographs in New York they will do so with impunity. Law enforcement and other agencies arrest and kill innocents every day.

Legislators wishing to avoid unnecessary and undesired backlash would do well to include wording to this effect in different legislation, so as not to attract undue attention. Not that it matters. The media merely reports to us in detail the imminent and accelerating decline of the United States.

People just become more concerned when these actions are reported with a Constitutional subtext - it is with good reason, but where were these objections prior to the recent reprise of our observation and nationwide interest of the rights specifically granted to us in the Constitution? These have been abused for decades.

We've all been comfortable with this, because up until now, it's appeared to be limited, or isolated in its scope; but the noose has been tightening on us as a nation, and it has become impossible for us to ignore. The government of the United States, through its efforts to exact more control, and more oppression, will, through its increased efforts, actually become the agent of its own demise.

Having said that, however, it is, now more than ever, important that the world take note - not just the United States - but the world to take note of the U.S.'s attack on its own presumably free citizens. These actions are being scrutinized more now than ever.

This end will come naturally anyway as a consequence of imposing a fascist, tyrannical rule over your citizens. Right now, because these overt, virtually (and literally) hostile actions are broadcast to the nation and the world, there is only one direction this can go - and that is not in favor of the government.

In spite of the fact that we have just now, as a nation, truly realized the degree to which we have been lied to, exploited, oppressed, and abused, it is better than never having realized this. Now that we are here, the disintegration of this rule of power can begin. When Bush leaves office, will all of this criminal legislation be reversed? No.

Every piece of legislation that reaches the greater public eye should be in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. And if it is not, this legislation is not legal, or valid, and should be reversed, repealed, or removed.

Our freedoms are an illusion. We are living in a police state. It's simply a matter of degree. The government, military, and police force of the United States of America has complete and total liberty to detain, threaten, imprison, or kill at their whim, and in just about every case you can research, you will see a criminal bias in favor of the authority taking illegal actions against the presumably free and "law-abiding" citizens.

We are free to obey every law - however unconstitutional - and every whim of the paranoid, power-hungry, criminal government in place. We are free to be threatened, imprisoned, or killed at the whim of the government in place, and with complete impunity.

We are free to move about under close observation by government and state authorities, being careful not to appear, or to "speak" about subjects that may make us appear as a terrorist, or to "appear" to be aiding and abetting terrorists, according to a set of criteria that the government authorities shall determine with regard to each specific case (i.e., at their whim).

Nothing specific has been outlined in this legislation. These decisions are made on site, and evidence will not be provided against you during your prosecution - all of which will take place behind closed doors - if you are allowed a trial at all.

We are free to pay income taxes under threat of criminal prosecution, despite the fact that there is no law that states every American citizen must pay income tax on their earned revenue (slave labor), or face imprisonment, fines, and a destruction of our lives and freedom.

There is no one to speak up about these injustices in our government, because they are upholding the laws of the land - even when these laws are unconstitutional. Their hands are tied, and people, like Ed and Elaine Brown, are not going to wait until Congress creates legislation to repeal an unconstitutional amendment before they stand up to their god, and Constitutionally given rights.

Ed and Elaine Brown are on the side of god and man's law. The authorities breaking every law to threaten and attempt to unjustly imprison Ed and Elaine are operating outside of both realms of law. They are operating by the laws granted to them by mere physical force, because they don't have a leg to stand on in court. These militant police forces attack their own citizens. They reject god and man. So who are these people? Are they people? Who do they work for?

The Ed and Elaine Brown case of civil disobedience has again brought out the criminal element in the United States government, who, not satisfied with the laws they themselves have created, opt to simply use force to overwhelm, or eliminate conscientious objectors who have the backing of god and the Constitution of the United States.

Ed and Elaine Brown have learned what happens when you challenge even the unlawful actions of officers and authorities who effect illegal arrest warrants for fabricated legal transgressions. Ed and Elaine brought charges against officers that entered their property and attempted to arrest them illegally. There are a string of infractions made by these officers, including operating outside of their jurisdiction - does this matter? Ed and Elaine's case was brought to the state courts where Ed and Elaine reside, only to then be illegally passed to federal courts.

This action on behalf of the state courts where Ed and Elaine reside was in direct contradiction to the laws of the United States of America. All of the charges against these officers were then dismissed in federal court, and Ed and Elaine are now in seclusion, abandoned by the court/(in)justice system presumably designed to protect American citizens from abuse of government. Is this clear enough to everyone reading this?

Will Ed and Elaine be facing the United States Military like David Koresh? Welcome to hell. Here's an apt corollary that was drawn between the incident in Waco, TX, and Tienanmin Square.

Republican Rep. Texas, Ron Paul, has spoken on the Ed and Elaine Brown case, which is not a "case", but is rather a slow motion atrocity that is about to take place on the world screen. Ed and Elaine Brown are your neighbors. They are not religious zealots or criminals, and they are not insane. Every one of us knows a couple like Ed and Elaine Brown. They are simple people, living simple, honest lives.

Corporations who often poison their own customers, and the societies in which they exist, but who also make billions doing so should shoulder the burden to support the governments they operate in collusion with in securing these funds, influence, and who operate to ensure these corporations' continued existence. Not the poor and struggling citizens who now rely on these corporations to survive, both as an employer, and as a provider for the basic necessities.

Fortunately, I'm a ufo nut. So I see aid coming from outside of the oppressed billions on this planet. True freedom is around the corner...Not the fake freedom we're given at gunpoint.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
i believe its the same reason my plant has an automatic termination policy towards cameras and recording devices. if people have them and see somethink hinky going down they might photo graph it or film it. the city just doesn't want evidence to be collected against them



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
This will make easier to monitor civilians from filming at the spot police or other government agents brutality against other civilians.

This one was expected after so many problems with video footage of violations of civil rights on citizens that has become a liability in courts against the police departments all over the nation.

Thanks to camera phones the brutality of our law enforcers agents has been shown over and over again.

I hope that NY citizens will demand this to stop.

Or we may find ourself with the same kind of law in other states and again in the dark days of no prof againts the public servers that are there to serve the public and protect our rights.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   


Though the Mayor’s Office of Film has said that the new rules are not aimed at families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers, the enforcement would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in public for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.


And again for clearence:



Though the Mayor’s Office of Film has said that the new rules are not aimed at families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers, the enforcement would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in public for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.


Now tell me this... how is this a violation of you rights to use a camera when being in New York? Where does it state that mr. Brown mother of 4 will be put in armlock and wrestled to the ground because she wanted to take a photo in New York?
If you don't have anything to hide, what would it matter to you that the government can see what it is you are taking pictures of?

In this case I really can't see what it is you are so affraid of with this new set of rules which is in many ways sensible. It's not about control... it's about being able to know if 20 people are gonna be congesting the streets on a particular day at a particular place.
If you are a tourist... heck even a New York citizen who likes to take handheld photos of drainpipes you don't have to apply for this permit, just go have fun.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join