Today’s New York Times had an article about railfan Duane Kerzic who was arrested by Amtrak police taking pictures of Amtrak trains at Pennsylvania Station. He asserted his rights and suffered the now-predictable consequences. He then posted the entire episode on the web – but ended up settling with Amtrak for an amount of money and as part of the settlement took down the material from the internet.
Somehow Stephen Colbert picked up the story perhaps because Kerzic’s explanation was that he was taking his “forbidden” pictures to enter them into … Amtrak’s own photography contest! “Picture Our Train.” Enter their contest - get arrested! Neat deal for Amtrak. And then Amtrak dropped its webpage about the photo contest! It just gets funnier and funnier.
That is the second article on the subject this week. The Washington Post did one on the photography of public buildings in the District of Columbia. The same ignorance is at play, and even the general “non-railfan” public is subject to imagined law and regulation on photography.
The rationale is that so-called guides and instructions prepared for those who plan to launch a terror atttack are told to take photographs of the target. Like a terrorist is going to use his Cannon Digital Rebel with a 75-300 telephoto lense while spying on a target.
It is all CYA BS. The discovery of photos of a target in the possesion of a terrorist would have the mass media screaming “Why wasn’t the suspect arrested while taking the pictures!!!”, and demands that heads roll.
The article says Kerzic was ticketed for trespassing. Was he trespassing? Did I miss something, or did the article leave that critical point out?
In reading the language of the Amtrak photo policy, I can see why there would be endless confusion over whether the issue would be trespassing or taking photos, and why the enforcement would reflect that confusion.
I find it very ironic that Amtrak wants photos to use in their advertising and calendar but has not informed their police that photography taken from a legal place can not be censored. Seems to be an internal communication problem thee.
Their cops need to get educated on constitutional law.
LOL. Good luck on that one. Most cops that I know think that the Constitution is only a technicality that defense attorneys use to get charges dropped.
After reading an account like this, is anyone surprised that Amtrak still has difficulty (after 39 years now) doing its basic task–that of being a passenger rail system people want to ride?
Sorry to point out facts contrary to your world view, but Amtrak isn’t the government - its a private corporation. See, National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U.S. 407, 410 (1992) (“The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak, is a private, for-profit corporation created by Congress in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (RPSA), Pub.L. 91-518, 84 Stat. 1328, 45 U.S.C. § 501 et seq. The purpose of Amtrak is to provide modern and efficient intercity and commuter rail passenger service. §§ 501, 541. Amtrak is not an agency or instrumentality of the United States Government, § 541, but it has been supported over the years by congressional appropriations.”), National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Rlwy Co., 470 U.S. 451, 454-55 (1985) (“On concluding that a reorganized and restructured rail passenger system could be successful, Congress established the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a private, for-profit corporation that has come to be known as Amtrak. The corporation is not “an agency or establishment” of the Government but is authorized by the Government to operate or contract for the operation of intercity rail passenger service”)
On another note, interestingly enough in both of those cases, Amtrak’s position was argued by a future Supreme Court Justic
With Amtrak being legally a private “for profit” corporation, a profitable corporation might see the operating losses from the passenger rail operations as a nice little tax shelter.
This makes me ask - with Amtrak being a private Corporation - who are the actual shareholders of Amtrak? The US Government? If the US Govt. is the shareholder - than private corporation or not Amtrak still takes it’s marching orders from Uncle Sam (look at how Obama bossed around GM for example…)
A majority of Amtrak stock is held by the Sec. of the DOT. The rest is held by the RRs whose passenger trains Amtrak now operates. So, the Amtrak board is controlled by the executive branch. So, the president can exert a good bit of influence over Amtrak’s operations.
Since Amtrak is not a government agency, it’s employees are not government workers. Amtrak is free to hire and fire at will, set it’s own pay scale and benefits and arrange it’s own internal affairs. Amtrak employees are free to unionize the same as any other RR workers.
Amtrak’s capital and operating deficits are funded directly by the Congress. So, Congress can (and does) exert a good bit of political will on Amtrak, too.
So therefore, since the DOT owns most of Amtrak (and especially considering how Congress Funds it) the Government can legally boss it around. So, if Uncle Sam said you must allow photographers to take photos from train platforms, Amtrak would have to obey and there would be no further say about it.