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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-168 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-168 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