Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sec.Service Warns Public That They'd Confiscate Any Cameras Used to Take Pictures of First Family
JonathonTurley.org ^ | 03/22/10 | Jonathon Turley

Posted on 03/22/2010 1:14:50 PM PDT by OldDeckHand

This story on the First Lady taking the kids to a Broadway show in New York has an interesting element: a warning by the Secret Service that anyone taking their picture would have their cameras confiscated. Perhaps the Secret Service General Counsel could point us to where in the Constitution and federal law the Secret Service has the authority to ban photographs by the public and the confiscation of cellphones and pictures to enforce the ban.

Michelle Obama – with Sasha, 8, and Malia, 11, and about a dozen other people in tow – attended the matinee performance of “Memphis” Sunday. After the block was cordoned off, the large group entered the theater. Secret Service members did not like all of the pictures being taken that issued the warning. If the First Family wishes to avoid pictures, they may want to watch the play on video rather than confiscating cellphones and cameras of citizens. I find it outrageous that the Secret Service would consider it within its authority to confiscate phones to avoid annoyance to the First Family. The Secret Service at times seems to view itself as a Praetorian Guard rather than a public law enforcement agency.

(Excerpt) Read more at jonathanturley.org ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; broadway; communism; donutwatch; fascism; jackbootedthugs; lolalphabets; michelleobama; rapeofliberty; seriousbusiness; ss; tyranny; whysoseries
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-168 next last
Keep in mind, this is coming from a VERY LIBERAL guy in Jonathan Turley. Such behavior coming from federal agents sworn to uphold the Constitution is unconscionable.
1 posted on 03/22/2010 1:14:50 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; Admin Moderator
I had to truncate the title for space considerations. The full title is...

Secret Service Warns Public That They Would Confiscate Any Cameras Used to Take Pictures of First Family

2 posted on 03/22/2010 1:15:35 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (USA - b. July 4, 1776 / d. March 21, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

This is theft.


3 posted on 03/22/2010 1:16:41 PM PDT by john in springfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Under what authority do they seize personal property?


4 posted on 03/22/2010 1:17:01 PM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Hey congress: In November WE get to vote! - FUBO! Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

If they’re on public property or viewable from public places, they can be photographed. The first amendment guarantees this.


5 posted on 03/22/2010 1:17:19 PM PDT by meyer (It's time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: john in springfield

Guess it’s a budget enhancer. Buy your pictures now. No freebies!


6 posted on 03/22/2010 1:17:32 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

And the reason for this? National Security?

WTH is wrong with this country? The govt can do whatever it pleases and our “representatives” are not accountable to us.


7 posted on 03/22/2010 1:17:36 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA (Thinking of using 911 for protection? Google "Brittany Zimmerman")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Under what authority do they seize personal property?

Probably an executive order.
8 posted on 03/22/2010 1:17:44 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Okay, someone has to say it. Why would anyone want to take a picture of the first family?!
9 posted on 03/22/2010 1:17:51 PM PDT by CarolinaGOP ("Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Apparently everyone in the audience was reaching for their cell phones to take a picture of the first lady and her kids. Must have freaked the security people out.

Got no beef with the Secret Service. Their just doing their job.

10 posted on 03/22/2010 1:18:50 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Oh silly...he issued an executive order its the law now.


11 posted on 03/22/2010 1:18:55 PM PDT by VaRepublican (I would propagate taglines but I don't know how. But bloggers do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Forgetabout annoying the first lady, the first lady is an annoyance


12 posted on 03/22/2010 1:19:01 PM PDT by blueyon (The U. S. Constitution - read it and weep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGOP

“Okay, someone has to say it. Why would anyone want to take a picture of the first family?”

LOL!


13 posted on 03/22/2010 1:19:12 PM PDT by toldyou (Even if the voices aren't real they have some pretty good ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Looks like the SS finally figured out you can disguise a cellphone or a camera as a weapon and blow your brains out trying to answer a call or take a picture.

Something like that anyway.

They are about 100 years too late with most of this stuff. Best bet is to just keep these people in the White House. Every SD on the block has a cellphone with video!

14 posted on 03/22/2010 1:19:18 PM PDT by muawiyah ("Git Out The Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Under what authority do they seize personal property?

Simple...taking their pictures would steal their souls.And haven't we stolen enough from Africans already?

15 posted on 03/22/2010 1:19:20 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Host The Beer Summit-->Win The Nobel Peace Prize!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
You have to fight them in court.

Most people can't afford it, so they just get steamrollered. Legal fees are one of the governments most potent weapons in their war against citizens.

16 posted on 03/22/2010 1:19:25 PM PDT by Spirochete (Texas is an anagram for Taxes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Under what authority do they seize personal property?

Authority? We don't need no stinking authority. We have the One.

17 posted on 03/22/2010 1:19:28 PM PDT by itsahoot (Each generation takes to excess, what the previous generation accepted in moderation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Who is surprised? This is just the beginning. We will be living in an overt police state unless we take a stand now.


18 posted on 03/22/2010 1:19:32 PM PDT by outofstyle (Anti-socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Sec.Service Warns Public That They'd Confiscate Any Cameras Used to Take Pictures of First Family

Sounds like a scene from a Godfather movie.

19 posted on 03/22/2010 1:19:58 PM PDT by RckyRaCoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Here we go!
The goon squads have formed and you WILL NOT photograph the anointed ones EVAH!!!!


20 posted on 03/22/2010 1:20:23 PM PDT by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Their pictures are a glut on the market. Who wants more?


21 posted on 03/22/2010 1:20:25 PM PDT by SMARTY ("What luck for rulers that men do not think. " Adolph Hitler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I bet this is about Michelle being sick and tired of having photos of her butt plastered all over the internet.


22 posted on 03/22/2010 1:20:39 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

LOL


23 posted on 03/22/2010 1:20:49 PM PDT by Arkansas Toothpick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

If you’re going to shoot pictures of strangers, why would you shoot pictures of ugly strangers?


24 posted on 03/22/2010 1:20:52 PM PDT by throwback (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

If I understand correctly, it is bad juju to some tribes if you have your picture taken.


25 posted on 03/22/2010 1:20:59 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Thanks for the heads up. Good job.


26 posted on 03/22/2010 1:21:15 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: meyer

>The first amendment guarantees this.

Not anymore.


27 posted on 03/22/2010 1:21:26 PM PDT by swarthyguy (Join ACFANS - Alleged Conservatives For A Nanny State. www.acfans.com (Ha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: OldDeckHand

The Fourth Amendment crumbled with the twin towers on September 11, 2001.


29 posted on 03/22/2010 1:21:54 PM PDT by lightman (Adjutorium nostrum (+) in nomine Domini)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

You know what we never hear about that other US president families I doubt Ronald Reagan and Nancy tell SS consficate camera

I think other US presidents would give autograph


30 posted on 03/22/2010 1:22:05 PM PDT by SevenofNine ("We are Freepers, all your media belong to us ,resistance is futile")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGOP

Yeah when did SS turn into TMZ.com


31 posted on 03/22/2010 1:22:49 PM PDT by SevenofNine ("We are Freepers, all your media belong to us ,resistance is futile")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Keep in mind, this is coming from a VERY LIBERAL guy in Jonathan Turley.

One of the very, VERY few on the left who was not exercising intellectual vacancy or willful ignorance during the Clinton impeachment. A gentleman and a scholar, one who took a good bit of heat from his own side time and time again.

If the First Family wishes to avoid pictures, they may want to watch the play on video rather than confiscating cellphones and cameras of citizens. I find it outrageous that the Secret Service would consider it within its authority to confiscate phones to avoid annoyance to the First Family.

He was this outraged when Clinton attempted to use Executive Privilege to keep Secret Service agents from being required to testify to their knowledge of matters before Congress or the court.

And he's stinkin' right -- if those cell phones, personal cameras are such an annoying problem for Her Heinie-ness and their princesses, they can wait and watch it in the comfort of the White House theater. Brudder.

32 posted on 03/22/2010 1:23:04 PM PDT by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

The next thing you know we will not be allowed to make any eye contact and must look down when the Messiah and his family pass by.


33 posted on 03/22/2010 1:23:13 PM PDT by Dinah Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

“Under what authority do they seize personal property?”

Pffffft. Are you referring to that old document, The Consitution?! That’s so passe`.

It’s all State property now.


34 posted on 03/22/2010 1:23:16 PM PDT by brownsfan (The average American: Uninformed, and unconcerned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

The secret service is subject to the Bill of Rights too!


35 posted on 03/22/2010 1:24:14 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT,NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Fascism....Tyrants.....Arrogance.....


36 posted on 03/22/2010 1:24:16 PM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RckyRaCoCo

Will they throw down a couple of bills?


37 posted on 03/22/2010 1:24:28 PM PDT by rahbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Well, I guess it’s a whole new ballgame.


38 posted on 03/22/2010 1:24:50 PM PDT by timestax (CNNLIES..BIG TIME)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

oh no you didn’t!


39 posted on 03/22/2010 1:25:40 PM PDT by steveo (2010 never again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

You have to give Turley props for putting this out there among his liberal fans. Most lib law profs would either ignore it or use some cockamamie theory why its permissible for Nat Sec. Of course if this was Bush then they’d ALL be up in arms.


40 posted on 03/22/2010 1:25:52 PM PDT by The Hound Passer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Maybe the girls have gotten fatter?


41 posted on 03/22/2010 1:25:56 PM PDT by roses of sharon (I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Since she's the new fat czar she can't have her fat ass photographed and plastered on the net now can she?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

42 posted on 03/22/2010 1:25:57 PM PDT by CajunConservative (Shut Up Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

What about the video camera embedded in the frame of my glasses?


43 posted on 03/22/2010 1:26:04 PM PDT by RobRoy (The US today: Revelation 18:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

It’s OK! We don’t need or want to see any more pics of “Bubble Butt”, anyways. Use already broken cameras...hundreds of people, hundreds of image capture devices.....they would never get all the functional units.


44 posted on 03/22/2010 1:26:41 PM PDT by Birdsbane ("Onward through the fog!" ... Oat Willie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Michelle Obama has placed her children squarely in the middle of public policy through her efforts to reduce childhood obesity. She has used her own children as part of that effort. Therefore, the appearance of those children is of legitimate public interest.

I wish it were not so. I wish that Michelle Obama had respected the boundries and not placed her children in this position. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

She has sown the wind...


45 posted on 03/22/2010 1:26:51 PM PDT by Haiku Guy (If you have a right / To the service I provide / I must be your slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Jonathan, they are just following orders from Her High Beltness - as I recall, zero has a bunch of security guards working with the USSS to provide his security. How do we know the ones threatening to take the cameras away were official USSS agents? They sure don’t mind pimping their daughters out for photo ops for political reasons.


46 posted on 03/22/2010 1:27:22 PM PDT by Citizen Soldier ("You care far too much what is written and said about you." Axelrod to Obama 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Raise your hands if you think Obama is an American. Looks like the birthers aren’t so crazy after all. If it looks like a commie and walks like a commie, it’s a commie.


47 posted on 03/22/2010 1:27:31 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Well, there is no wide angle lens in existence that would capture the first “ladies” ample buttocks from a distance of less than one mile, anyway...


48 posted on 03/22/2010 1:29:07 PM PDT by dashing doofus (Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Hound Passer; MozarkDawg
"You have to give Turley props for putting this out there among his liberal fans."

I read about 30 legal blogs each day. Turley's is one of them. He is a liberal, but he's not a reflexive liberal who will defend anything they libs do, unlike most. He did take a reasonably principled stand during impeachment, and he spoke out against the use of the "slaughter rule" more recently.

49 posted on 03/22/2010 1:29:08 PM PDT by OldDeckHand (USA - b. July 4, 1776 / d. March 21, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
The secret service is subject to the Bill of Rights too!

Really? Try and sue them. LOL

50 posted on 03/22/2010 1:30:14 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-168 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson