Nero
Senior Member
Colorado Bill Would Punish Officers Who Interfere with Photographers
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 4
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 4
A Bill To Punish Cops That Interfere With Photographers? Interesting.
- Thread starter Nero
- Start date
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Was just dropping in to see if someone was going to post this. Had a long conversation about my incident with my brother (a news photographer) over Easter dinner yesterday and he recounted a number of times when he was in the back of a squad card shouting at the officer, "You need to decided right now if you are going to formally charge me with something and bring me in and deal with the legal consequences of those actions, or open that door and let me be on my way since you know that nothing that I've done here is in any way ever remotely against the law." To know that cops could face legal action is too good to be true.
I'd love to see something like this at a federal level, but what the hell would the security guards yelling at photographers around all those federal buildings do?!
I'd love to see something like this at a federal level, but what the hell would the security guards yelling at photographers around all those federal buildings do?!
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
No, you have it backwards. We need a bill to punish cops who attempt to punish someone else by enforcing a law that doesn't exist.
LoL
I was being sarcastic
I find it absurd that so much time and money is being wasted even talking about a Bill to make it illegal for police officers to break the law. Oh the irony...
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Hey, if they can spend time and money protecting religious freedom (which is actually outlined in the Constitution already) they can spend some protecting the guys with the cameras that weren't around in the 1780's to weasel our way in too.
How does it make sense? A bill like this is required to state an officer cannot violate your rights???
More useless legislation.
I'm an old Bircher, so I'm somewhat schooled in the political philosophy of this discussion. Most of what I know comes from The New American. I'm no longer Right-wing; I've since become a die-hard Libertarian, but I still stand by a lot of what I learned from the JBS.
One opinion I read the TNA was by the editor. He argued against the Bill of Rights, and specifically the 2nd Amendment. He argued that the document undermined the sufficiency of the Constitution, and set a very bad precedent, which was followed by the Christian Coalition with their campaign in '94, and support for term limits. It's hard for me to argue with him, but yet, the intent behind such laws tends to give some power to their enforcement, at least for a time, through the passion exhibited by their advocates. The problem is the acquiescence to the positive rights theory, which is only a hint in the 2nd Amendment, but detracts attention from the Constitution itself.
A major change occurred with the Bill of Rights. Patriots no longer demanded that proponents of a law show them in the Constitution where the government had the authority to pass such, but now pointed to an amendment as a specific prohibition. It's like the Bill of Rights became the Constitution.
Understanding that no government can be trusted to abide by a piece of paper, Lysander Spooner opposed the very idea of a constitution. He said "The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."
Randy Barnett is probably the foremost authority on Spooner. His website is LysanderSpooner.org | Lysander Spooner: Lawyer, abolitionist, entrepreneur, and legal theorist, and he wrote The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, and Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty.
While I won't agree with everything Spooner or Barnett wrote (eg. natural law), I highly recommend these resources. Everyone is wrong about something, but we still have to move forward, and we must do so with the best material and resources we have available, and hope that errors will be dealt with along the way.
In conclusion, I cannot come down on one side or the other with the law protecting photographers. What we are looking at is such a mess that there is no easy solution. When your neighbor calls the cops on you for 'sneaking around with a camera,' obviously government is not the only problem.
One opinion I read the TNA was by the editor. He argued against the Bill of Rights, and specifically the 2nd Amendment. He argued that the document undermined the sufficiency of the Constitution, and set a very bad precedent, which was followed by the Christian Coalition with their campaign in '94, and support for term limits. It's hard for me to argue with him, but yet, the intent behind such laws tends to give some power to their enforcement, at least for a time, through the passion exhibited by their advocates. The problem is the acquiescence to the positive rights theory, which is only a hint in the 2nd Amendment, but detracts attention from the Constitution itself.
A major change occurred with the Bill of Rights. Patriots no longer demanded that proponents of a law show them in the Constitution where the government had the authority to pass such, but now pointed to an amendment as a specific prohibition. It's like the Bill of Rights became the Constitution.
Understanding that no government can be trusted to abide by a piece of paper, Lysander Spooner opposed the very idea of a constitution. He said "The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it."
Randy Barnett is probably the foremost authority on Spooner. His website is LysanderSpooner.org | Lysander Spooner: Lawyer, abolitionist, entrepreneur, and legal theorist, and he wrote The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, and Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty.
While I won't agree with everything Spooner or Barnett wrote (eg. natural law), I highly recommend these resources. Everyone is wrong about something, but we still have to move forward, and we must do so with the best material and resources we have available, and hope that errors will be dealt with along the way.
In conclusion, I cannot come down on one side or the other with the law protecting photographers. What we are looking at is such a mess that there is no easy solution. When your neighbor calls the cops on you for 'sneaking around with a camera,' obviously government is not the only problem.
I understand your point, but photographer's rights are being violated consistently. It might be better if there were to be a test case in the supreme court. I don't know, I'm no legal expert, but it needs clarification, IMO.
To be clear, this isn't about 'photographer's rights', this is about the rights of citizens of the United States who happen to have a recording device of some kind.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
It seems to me there has been a steady encroachment on individual rights ever since 9/11. The Patriot Act being one fine example. There has been a chorus of fear mongering from the Federal Government ever since. That combined with every cause being a new "war"; the "war" on drugs, the "war" on poverty and, of course, The Big Mac Daddy: The "war" on terror. I think this last one, not solely but perhaps in particular, has lead to a para-militarization of our police forces. The tail has begun to wag the dog and what I think is needed is not more legislation re-affirming civil rights, but a re-education of our police that they are the SERVANTS of the people. The tail, at this point, seems to be wagging the dog.
The conspiracist that lives in the dark recesses of my brain wants to think that the best way to control a populace is not to attempt to take away their civil liberties, but rather... To convince them it is in their best interest to willingly surrender them. And what better way to do that than with the dark specter of "war" constantly looming in their everyday lives. The soft, warm blanket of absolute safety for you (and especially "for the children!") is only a few, mild, inconveniences away, citizen; just drop off a few of your basic rights with any local Stormtrooper and feel the warm embrace.
And yes, I know I'm starting to sound like one of the tinfoil hat crowd with that last part...
,,,,
The conspiracist that lives in the dark recesses of my brain wants to think that the best way to control a populace is not to attempt to take away their civil liberties, but rather... To convince them it is in their best interest to willingly surrender them. And what better way to do that than with the dark specter of "war" constantly looming in their everyday lives. The soft, warm blanket of absolute safety for you (and especially "for the children!") is only a few, mild, inconveniences away, citizen; just drop off a few of your basic rights with any local Stormtrooper and feel the warm embrace.
And yes, I know I'm starting to sound like one of the tinfoil hat crowd with that last part...
,,,,
If a person's right has been violated, that means there's already a law in place giving that person the right that was violated. As I've already mentioned, that is the First Amendment.
What purpose does yet another law (even if it is at the state level) that says the exact same thing? We'll end up with a federal AND a state law saying the same thing. Will we then need a county / parish law to enforce the state law? How about a city ordinance then that will back up the county / parish law?
How about this: Instead of enacting duplicate laws, we simply enforce the ones already in place?
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I'd just like to point out the common misconception that laws are what give us our rights; which is simply not correct. The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, SECURE our rights against the power of government. Rights are are absolute and inherent by virtue of our humanity and if the Constitution never existed, our rights would still be intact. Legislation is passed, typically, to restrict or mediate our rights. For instance, we have the right to free speech, but slander and libel restrict that inherent right through legislation.
All that being said, I agree with your over-arching point. This if a 1st and 4th Amendment issue, certainly.
....
SkvLTD
Senior Member
My question is, why in the world in Colorado of all places? Nothing but legal smoking and rad skiing occurs anywhere near there. If anything DC needs such extra bill, but we all know there's really only 1 bill aka ticket to having any kind of rights -
That's the sad, but true reality. Got your rights violated? Try suing anyone without ^ . And while it happens every so often, how often doesn't it?
That's the sad, but true reality. Got your rights violated? Try suing anyone without ^ . And while it happens every so often, how often doesn't it?
No, you don't. You sound quite rational and level-headed to me. I think your understanding of what is going on is excellent.