You Can Photograph That Federal Building

The New York Times ^ | 18 Oct 2010 | DAVID W. DUNLAP

[Palter]

The right of photographers to stand in a public place and take pictures of federal buildings has been upheld by a legal settlement reached in New York.

In the ever-escalating skirmishes between photographers and security agencies, the most significant battlefield is probably the public way — streets, sidewalks, parks and plazas — which has customarily been regarded as a vantage from which photography cannot and should not be barred.

Under the settlement, announced Monday by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Federal Protective Service said that it would inform its officers and employees in writing of the “public’s general right to photograph the exterior of federal courthouses from publicly accessible spaces” and remind them that “there are currently no general security regulations prohibiting exterior photography by individuals from publicly accessible spaces, absent a written local rule, regulation or order.”

[The full text of the settlement.]

The settlement, filed on Friday, ended a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security by Antonio Musumeci, 29, of Edgewater, N.J. He was arrested Nov. 9, 2009, as he videotaped a demonstrator in front of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street. His principal camera was confiscated but he recorded the encounter on a second camera. On two later occasions, he was also threatened with arrest.

The protective service, which guards buildings and properties that are owned by or leased to the federal government, is part of the homeland security agency.

“This settlement secures the public’s First Amendment right to use cameras in public spaces without being harassed,” said a statement issued by Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which represented Mr. Musumeci in Federal District Court.

[Palter]

New York Civil Liberties Union Antonio Musumeci was arrested for photography on public property.

[subterfuge]

Good. It’s passed time for us to stop letting islamists determine how we conduct ourselves.

[CIB-173RDABN]

I understand the need for security, but somethings go too far, especially when it goes against common sense.

Let us say a bad guy wanted or needed a photograph of a public building. There are dozens if not hundreds of ways to do so without law enforcement knowing about it.

All these type of laws do is inconvenient private citizens.

[Alas Babylon!]

Google Steet View comes to mind. You only need to go as far as your computer.

[paul51]

with less cameras on the street, we would all be safer

[ResearchMonkey]

I was detained for a few minutes for filming a ring of American flags at the FBI building in Los Angeles. I was filming away from the building shooting only sky and flag(s). Then a 3 man security detail came out confronted our family and read us the riot act.

I don’t think they appreciated that my kids began filming the confrontation from every direction.

We were there, as a family of videographers, covering the Pro-Iranian (citizens) protest.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Government always seems to move closer and closer to fascism.

[SandRat]

Federal Forms, fingerprints, DNA ample, background checks, and a mandatory 30 day waiting period to buy a camera. < /s

[Americanexpat]

The more power you give them no matter how innocuous they will abuse it.

[paul51]

only the police need cameras any how

[ixtl]

For once the A.C.L.U. did something right.

I guess that even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then.