There have been several panicky calls that "Arabs" were seen at national tourist spots, including photographing the Hoover Dam. Some on Usenet are calling for steps to "crack down" on these photographers. This is an article I wrote for Usenet: This is not the Soviet Union. Anyone may photograph _anything_, except on a military base or the like. There are no restrictions supported in the U.S. Constitution supporting bans on photographing, drawing, or making notes on anything not explicitly forbidden by military classification laws. I know that I if I am ever stopped for photographing a dam or a bridge I hope I'll have the courage to tell the cop to fuck off. If arrested on such a bogus charge, things will escalate dramatically and I would be forced to Plan B. (Sounds harsh. "They're just doing their job." Nope. They don't have any legal right to stop persons without probable cause. Looking Arabic is not probable cause. Photographing a dam is not probable cause. Being suspicious is not probable cause.) I realize many of the survivalist and gun owner types are now adopting the "My country, right or wrong" stance. Not me. Things are going to get very, very violent if this stampede toward a police state continues. --Tim May
Tim May wrote:
I know that I if I am ever stopped for photographing a dam or a bridge I hope I'll have the courage to tell the cop to fuck off. If arrested on such a bogus charge, things will escalate dramatically and I would be forced to Plan B.
Strong suggestion: don't phrase it quite that way. Don't give the jack-booted thug any real grounds for arrest, or even "detention". Assuming the pigs didn't lie, that Indiana man who was arrested for burning a flag and tossing a firecracker at the pigs screwed up. He should have gone along peacefully, then sued their asses off for false arrest, misuse of legal process, and whatever else he could think of. (Actually, he should have killed them for attempted false arrest, but in today's climate that would only have gotten him killed. The best he could do, today, is sue them.) It might be even worse for you, as a Californian, than for most Americans. Isn't California one of the states which requires all citizens to "cooperate" with police? With cooperation presumably defined as "whatever the pig wants you to do".
(Sounds harsh. "They're just doing their job." Nope. They don't have any legal right to stop persons without probable cause. Looking Arabic is not probable cause. Photographing a dam is not probable cause. Being suspicious is not probable cause.)
Things are going to get very, very violent if this stampede toward a police state continues.
I hope so, but I'm afraid not. So long as the heat is turned up only when there's plausible cover, the frog will stay in the pot. (That's a base canard on frogs, by the way. A few years back some scientist boiled a frog slowly. The frog hopped out of the water as soon as it got uncomfortably warm.) SRF -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
On Tuesday, October 2, 2001, at 06:04 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
Tim May wrote:
I know that I if I am ever stopped for photographing a dam or a bridge I hope I'll have the courage to tell the cop to fuck off. If arrested on such a bogus charge, things will escalate dramatically and I would be forced to Plan B.
Strong suggestion: don't phrase it quite that way. Don't give the jack-booted thug any real grounds for arrest, or even "detention".
Fuck that.
It might be even worse for you, as a Californian, than for most Americans. Isn't California one of the states which requires all citizens to "cooperate" with police? With cooperation presumably defined as "whatever the pig wants you to do".
No. You really have been reading too many of the "Happy Fun Court is Not Amused" arguments and not enough about probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the C. in general. There certain is no "requirement to cooperate." Where to do otherwise intelligent people pick up these bizarre ideas? --Tim May
Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, October 2, 2001, at 06:04 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
Tim May wrote:
I know that I if I am ever stopped for photographing a dam or a bridge I hope I'll have the courage to tell the cop to fuck off. If arrested on such a bogus charge, things will escalate dramatically and I would be forced to Plan B.
Strong suggestion: don't phrase it quite that way. Don't give the jack-booted thug any real grounds for arrest, or even "detention".
Fuck that.
Some quick research shows me that some states no longer make it aggravated harassment to swear at a cop, though it's still an offense in some states. I couldn't find Indiana's status on that, but it looks like your method might be successful.
It might be even worse for you, as a Californian, than for most Americans. Isn't California one of the states which requires all citizens to "cooperate" with police? With cooperation presumably defined as "whatever the pig wants you to do".
No. You really have been reading too many of the "Happy Fun Court is Not Amused" arguments and not enough about probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the C. in general. There certain is no "requirement to cooperate."
<shrug> I really thought I had come across that in Findlaw or somewhere. Maybe it was a proposal that was shot down, maybe it's in other states, maybe you're wrong. I don't see it in a Findlaw search just now, but I'm not even sure what it would be called. Certainly not the "Citizen Bend Over and Spread 'Em Act", but things like "Police Assistance Act" and "Citizens Cooperation Act" didn't give any hits, either.
Where to do otherwise intelligent people pick up these bizarre ideas?
Heh. If you're referring to me, events of the past few days argue against my intelligence. More generally, it's probably a mixture of laziness, time pressure, the value of the effort needed to check every "fact" before posting, and "knowing" that something is true and therefore need not be checked. Posters to mailing lists and Usenet could treat every post as a submission to a refereed journal, but by the time the fact-checking was done, the thread would have died out. SRF -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
Tim May wrote:
Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the C. in general. There certain is no "requirement to cooperate."
Where to do otherwise intelligent people pick up these bizarre ideas?
Probably because of all the heretofore unheard of things happening to people in the courts these days. My attorneys recently spent some time explaining to me about the new trend in Wisconsin courts and police. It seems that if they are "investigating" a crime, and you become "uncooperative" in any way -- not meaning you have to incriminate yourself, just "uncooperative" -- they charge you with obstructing an officer, a class C felony. And it generally sticks. Apparently no one thus far has taken it into fed court, or at least been successful in getting it overturned, and it's become a real threat. Interesting times we live in. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@cybershamanix.com http://www.cybershamanix.com/resume.html
At 09:04 PM 10/2/01 -0400, The Amphibian Anti Defamation League wrote:
(That's a base canard on frogs, by the way. A few years back some scientist boiled a frog slowly. The frog hopped out of the water as soon as it got uncomfortably warm.)
Yes but its so useful its worth keeping around ---like the myth(?) that railroad tracks have historical 'back compatability' with roman chariots.
participants (4)
-
David Honig -
Harmon Seaver -
Steve Furlong -
Tim May