Unfortunately, this is the UK, not the US or Canada with their explicit Freedom of the Press protections that also cover amateurs. As Cotty indicates, Journalists are actually licensed in the UK, meaning that 'Legitimate' is a valid description.
-Adam On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Putting on my philosophers hat, in answer to your question, yes the > professionals and the amateurs have the same rights to record the scene. > So to take that to the practical, under any rational understanding, of those > rights the police have no legitimate power granted to them to keep the > bystanders or News photographers from recording the scene. There maybe > legitimate exceptions. National security may or may not be one of them, > however if that isn't involved then to limit the amateurs is a violation of > their rights. Of course the Police have the power to do anything they want > that the Citizens will let them get away with, but that's a different story. > Your use of "legitimate" is a clue to your problem, it presupposes that > those without credentials from a "news" organization are illegitimate and > there is the wedge that allows petty tyrants to begin to erode the rights of > all. Before long the tyrants aren't so petty... > > Cotty wrote: >> >> On 4/10/08, ann sanfedele, discombobulated, unleashed: >> >> >>> >>> I think there has been lots more mischief created by the ease with which >>> one can use a cell >>> phone to clandestinely photo strangers on the street and blast them to >>> the world on the web. >>> >> >> Ann raises a very topical point here - one that still has plenty of >> mileage to run - and will become more prevalent in the near future. >> >> There are plenty of reports from around the world of situations where >> passers-by to an incident who have pulled out their camera-phones and >> snapped some pics or recorded video, have subsequently had them >> confiscated by police who claim that there may be evidence relevant to >> [the] investigation of said incident. >> >> This raises important civil liberty issues that have yet to make it to >> court (in the UK) in a defining situation. >> >> Viz: an air ambulance lands in a town centre where an injured man is >> stretchered onto it, the paramedics still working on him with CPR etc. A >> couple of dozen bystanders are caught nearby between the police cordon >> and a building, effectively in 'no-man's land' for the duration of the >> helicopter stay, only about 20 minutes or so. During the patient >> evacuation, police announce that anyone caught using phones to picture >> the scene will have them confiscated - and indeed several are seized. >> Yet two stills photographers and a video news cameraman nearby continue >> to record the scene. One police officer attempts to stop one stills >> photographer from photographing, and a conversation ensues which results >> in the officer from backing down and concentrating on the crowd. >> >> This scenario actually happened recently in the UK, and I was the video >> news cameraman in this case. >> >> My point is that the time will come when the police will not back down >> and censure of legitimate newsgathering operations will result. I >> suspect it will proceed to court for a legal definition to be made that >> will then inform future police powers (in the UK in this case). >> >> At what stage do 'legitimate newsgathering operations' merge with >> 'bystanders snapping on phones' - are the two actually the same? Is >> there a distinction? Do police actually have authority to seize >> recording devices by claiming they may contain evidence central to an >> ongoing investigation? If so - does that extend to professional >> newsgathering organisations? The answer is - it can. >> >> In the UK, professional newsgathering organisations (defined by UK >> standards as a bone fide journalist, licensed by the Association of >> Chief Police Officers and provided with a photo-ID card for proof) >> cannot be made to hand over recording devices or their recordings >> without a court order overseen by a judge. The police could not legally >> have demanded my camera tape or camera, even though they possibly may >> have arrested me for a public order offense if I had refused any such >> demands. My employer's legal department have defined protocols in this >> situation - no material is ever to be handed to police in such cases - >> even if arrest will be the result. >> >> For anyone else, you're at the mercy of the police! Obviously your >> mileage may vary by country. >> >> I have as yet to encounter a situation whereby I m off duty but witness >> an incident and record it on my own camera-phone......... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Cheers, >> Cotty >> >> >> ___/\__ >> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche >> ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com >> _____________________________ >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> >> > > > -- > You get further with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. > --Al Capone. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
