It is bad enough having to fear being detained while photographing trains - now do we have to worry about what is in the background of our shots? A lawyer friend sent me this – I cannot vouch for the truth or current accuracy of the info.
Dave Nelson
From the Althouse (UW Law Prof) blog:
March 9, 2011
When a ridiculous law is proposed, I assume it was designed to address some specific problem…
… and the drafter simply (and stupidly) forgot to think about what other things would be covered by the text. But this law, making it a 1st degree felony to photograph a farm, has so many inappropriate applications that it’s hard to imagine a drafter that oblivious.
And what was the original specific problem that fired him up in the first place? There’s this:
Organizations such as PETA and the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida contend [Sen. Jim Norman, R-Tampa] drafted the legislation in response to a number of high-profile exposés that revealed horrific conditions on farms around the country, and worry that without whistleblowers the industry will operate with impunity…
(1) A person who enters onto a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commit
If true, it’s another of many reasons why I would never want to live in Florida but that’s another story. It sounds more like wishful thinking by someone who wants to make a political statement . I don’t think it’s real. Not to mention the numerous violations of the First Ammendment.
I would broaden the law to include prohibiting photography on all municipal, county, state, and federal highways and streets and the adjacent environs. Nor should anyone except licensed astronomers be allowed to even look up much less be allowed to take pictures of the sky. Only news cameramen with union cards and in the employ of a legitimate news medium and written permission from the Homeland Secureity Adminsitration obtained three days in advance are allowed to photography a news scene as defined by authorities two weeks in advance. Personal pictures of one’s family will be limited to one 5X8 per person per family except for gruoup pictures which can only be prouced to the number of and of the people depicted in the given picture; wallet pictures of anyone and anything are limited to two per picture holder (one facing each way) no matter how many are in the picture. Photo ID’s are outlawed except for employees of governments or businesses with more than five people and can only be pictures can only be taken by a government licensed photographer as permitted by the most local police department. These laws will become effective at midnight April 1, 2011. Anyone caught violating these laws will be punishible by counting the number of pixels on each of their mug shots.
They are proposing to make into law a prohibition to photograph a “private agricultrual function” that is visible from a nearby highway unless you have permission. Ironic, the Supreme Court recently allowed a radical group of idiots from Kansas the right to protest and belittle the families of fallen soldiers while conducting a private funeral that just happens to be visible from a nearby highway. Usually all going on while the camera’s are rolling.
So lets protect the cows and soybeans from such humility and disrespect, as to our fallen troops and their grieving families…too bad. Priorities anyone?
I had a run in a while back with some rent-a-cops that tried telling me the same thing (can’t take a picture with their building in the background). As it wasn’t a DoD or DoE facility and I was on a public sidewalk I invited them to call the PD, I’ll wait. I’d expect this law (if it were to be enacted) to be challenged in court and (one would hope) struck down.
The farm would then be in “plain view”, as that term of art is used in the context of 4th Amendment discussions. The irony is that if a law enforcement officer (of any kind) were standing there at the same place too, and believed he or she saw or sensed some evidence of a crime of some kind being committed over on the farm, they likely wouldn’t need to obtain a search warrant to use that evidence, or to go onto the farm to further their investigation - that’s the ‘plain view’ exception doctrine to the 4th Amendment, which is often utilized in cases involving traffic stops on the public highways, etc.
Reminds me of the law in some state which makes it illegal to “slander” or “libel” vegetables or some such other farm products by printing critical comments about their quality . . .
Now would this include art? Painting a picture of a sylvan setting or the setting of the sun over the plains on a warm evening with storm clouds forming on the distant horizon? Does this law apply to artistic painters or just digital click clicks. Of course the governemts are free to make any laws they wish. And Big Brother knows better than Father what’s good for us. Homeland Security is sure doing its job of making me feel secure in being an American!
It sounds more like a politician peacocking himself or herself to a certain group of supporters so come November he or she can tell that group he “tried” to do something for them. Even though he or she knows the bill won’t go anywhere, bringing it up makes it looks like they doing something. Typical posturing by politicians regardless of party or political leaning. I’m not too concerned.
I think it was Trains that had an article about someone visiting Cuba. He had become friends with a railroad shop foreman. IIRC, he had provided shop manuals for Alcos and he asked to take a picture of either a pre-embargo Alco or a Russian Alco knock-off.
The official couldn’t let him take a picture of the engine because it was prohibited to take pictures of railroads there. He was allowed to take a photo of the antique vehicle that was parked in front of the engine though.
I don’t remember if it was on here or one of my other groups, but a railfan was hassled for taking pictures of trains at a crossing near (IIRC) a city water treatment plant. He wasn’t taking pictures of the facility directly, but the plant people were afraid that it was in the background. They had signs on the facility’s fence that said photography was forbidden.
I know it was on a local group where one guy wrote of his experiences near Des Moines. He was on the south side taking pictures of the UP. The place he was at has public athletic fields and is next to the Iowa Great Ape Trust.
The monkey house rent-a-cop came over and asked him what he was doing. The guy told him, taking photos of trains. The guard had no problem with that. A bit later the railfan changed positions and took a photo of a train, with the monkey house facility in the background. The guard became unglued, rushed over to the railfan, accused him of being a terrorist and said he was calling the city police.
I’m wondering if this isn’t a poke at Homeland Security and the zealousness in which some think they have to enforce that Security. I can’t believe anybody is going to take this seriously. Of course, on the other hand, you really don’t know what some farmers are hiding in those fields back there…could be marijuana plants, gas wells, who knows? So maybe some of these farmers finally reached their solons for protection.
MAPS! These will have to be illegal, too. And the same with Google and all the other sattellite downloads available on our comuters. Of course, maybe computers will have to be outlawed too. Or at least restricted to porn or the passing of notes that say if you don’t pass this on the boogieman will get you and you’ll have bad luck from next Tuesday to forever. No, this is just a joke. But if it isn’t, we are all in trouble.
Evidently it would include art, it’s not limited to digital photos, but any reproductions.
Yep, in order to avoid up to 30 years in prison, google execs will have to have ALL agricultural areas blacked out in both satellite view and street view!
Ten years ago I would have said the same thing about the proposed USAPatriot Act. Now I have learned to Never Say Never. That blatantly unconstitutional act passed almost unanimously and President Bush praised it as he signed it. The government continues to constantly tighten their grip, and very few seem to care.
"And what was the original specific problem that fired him up in the first place? There’s this:
Organizations such as PETA and the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida contend [Sen. Jim Norman, R-Tampa] drafted the legislation in response to a number of high-profile exposés that revealed horrific conditions on farms around the country, and worry that without whistleblowers the industry will operate with impunity."
So, if that is true, it is not part of vast conspiracy but rather a politician protecting corporations that donate to his campaign. As in most matters, follow the money.
Doesn’t matter why. What matters is that a few in the name of Homeland Security or a Cover Ones’ Butt or to Protect Friends Who Pay Me Money can take away the rights of all others. If we were to stop everybody from doing everything any given individual doesn’t like or doesn’t want known, then all would come to a standstill and we’d all be prisoners of someone else’s war!
The reason the why matters is that it is a lot easier to prevent some politico from getting a law passed to protect his pal than when “national security” is invoked.