[luftfluss]

Photographers’ First Amendment rights weakened by new Federal District Court ruling

Federal District Court Judge Mark Kearney ruled in the cases Fields v. City of Philadelphia and Geraci v. City of Philadelphia that photographers will be protected by the First Amendment only if the taking of the image is an action of opposition or protest (see below for the full ruling). Taking a photo of a police officer on the job without an accompanying "challenge or criticism" of the officer's actions is not protected by the First Amendment. If a photographer does not exhibit "expressive conduct" while taking the photos then they're not protected.

The Trial Court Opinion

[vonBaloney]

This ruling doesn't make a bit of sense seeing as how it is legal to be filming whatever you can see in a public place when the police are not around, so now you are obligated to put away the camera if police show up? I don't think it will hold up, but nevertheless it is a bad joke that shouldn't have happened.

[Rupert]

The SCOTUS has already ruled on this and is in direct contradiction to the brain dead judge that made such a ridiculous ruling. Perhaps the judge in question needs some legal advice?

Regards!

[LaurenOE]

Photographing Police...is by it's nature a protest/social commentary or whatever.
This will not hold up.
Police exist to - well - Police.
They are not military, but an armed force that is serving and protecting?
Nah, this will definitely not hold up.

[aremmes]

The SCOTUS has already ruled on this and is in direct contradiction to the brain dead judge that made such a ridiculous ruling. Perhaps the judge in question needs some legal advice?

Regards!

Yup. This will get thrown out on appeal very quickly, unless the plaintiff has morons for counsel.

[interested_observer]

Here is another article on the ruling....

• http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/id=1202750304941/No-First-Amendment-Rig...=0&curpage=ALL

There is something else at work here. There were a couple of additional references (in this case) to the Third Circuit in previous rulings not supporting specific aspects of the First Amendment in similar cases.

One would think that something like this would be overturned pretty easily - but stranger things have happened.

Ultimately, Judge Mark Kearney's issue seems to stem from the fact that the plaintiffs did not expressly tell police that they were capturing media for the purpose of protesting or otherwise disagreeing with the actions of the police officers being recorded.

Observing is now against the law as well as interfering.

[mattb123]

So maybe you should flip them off while you photograph them to be sure?

[sholtzma]

If this makes people who would otherwise be simply photographing police now have to perform some act of opposition/protest, methinks that the police are not going to like the consequences of this ruling, assuming it stands, which it won't. Remember Goethe: "beware of what you wish for, for you will get it...."

[Digitalis]

If a photographer does not exhibit "expressive conduct" while taking the photos then they're not protected.

...let me get this straight: if you're doing interpretive dance while taking photos, you should be able to take photographs of every damn thing you see including law enforcement personnel.

[BigMackCam]

...let me get this straight: if you're doing interpretive dance while taking photos, you should be able to take photographs of every damn thing you see including law enforcement personnel.

Oh dear, yet *another* technique I need to work on...