King5 Interview about "Film is Not a Crime"

Please read more about your rights as a photographer, filmmaker citizen journalist or YouTuber.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://rcfp.org/photoguide/
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
http://www.kantor.com/blog/2005/12/legal_rights_of_photographers.shtml
http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=1185&edition=34

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• portoftacoma
• tacoma
• police
• arrest
• footage
• unlawful
• illegal
• king5
• news

[mi6QBranch]

It

can likewise constitute a civil tort such as conversion. Law enforcement officers may have

the authority to seize film when making an arrest but otherwise must obtain a court order.

[Acumensch]

Yeah, that's from Bert Krages' website. That's useful information.

[mi6QBranch]

You're all wrong. You have the right by LAW to film anything visible from a public space. This is nationwide LAW under the constitution and upheld by the supreme court. The Photographer was in the right if on Public space while filming.

[Acumensch]

Exactly, thanks mi6, and that's why the Police Department wrote me a letter apologizing for this incident, and I've been asked to file a lawsuit.

Know Your Rights!

Do you think I should make more videos which post the rights of the media?

[emodude123123]

do any officers know our rights?

[d00deth]

"Why didn't you just do what they say?" -- Because blindly obeying 'authority figures' is the first step towards a dictatorship. The second step is those 'authority figures' being able to deprive you of liberty, demoralise you in the street, and treat you like a common criminal when you've committed no clear crime. Then again, every 'Cops (tv)' traffic stop has that treatment involved, so I'm assuming the US is an outright fascist state?

[SketchupDesigns12]

@Quentyn73 Yep I Lover Europe Better Than America Espically Italy

[ozeshutterbug]

@d00deth It is starting to get that way here in South Australia with SAPOL arresting a photographer for Disturbing the Peace for attempting to video the interview at the Adelaide railway station. I was told you can't take photos here, on a station. At this point I hadn't even used my camera, it was just in my hand. I turned it on while they were talking to me, & next grabbed by 2 other Officers from behind & cuffed.

[floridaman2000]

@Sharkman3472 the video taping of the military current, soon to be, and or retired is A VIOLATION of the security of the US and it would be potentially leaked to the US enemies where the government keeps our defenses, so he should be charged for attempt of espionage

[floridaman2000]

@mi6QBranch you are wrong you douche

[Sharkman3472]

@stewartx5 I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[stewartx5]

@Sharkman3472 Suggest you check out court rulings on 18 U.S.C. § 793, such as 1988 U.S. v. Morison (844 F.2d 1057) and others. And the kid was released without charges only after his intent and actions up to that point were deemed non-threatening, with a promise from him not to resume filming at that location. The officers acted appropriately, with no followup action taken against them.

[Sharkman3472]

@stewartx5 Also remember the National News Media was going to broadcast their footage of the base on the news for everyone to see. What difference is it when the news does the recording versus a civilian. Check out Supreme Court Rulings on video/Photography on private property and 1st amendment. Also look at the kid that posted this 1st video he received an apology from the Police Department with no charges.I'm sorry those cops stepped on their dicks.

[Sharkman3472]

If the base is not smart enough to hide their tanks on their property "During a Time Of War" thats their problem... Not this young kid whom is well with in his legal and Constitutional rights to be/do what he was doing. There is Supreme Court Rulings that protect photographs and video under the 1st amendment. Every thing I have said does address the issue AND blows every thing you said right out of the water. If he violated that federal law WHY WERE THERE NO CHARGES FILED.

[stewartx5]

@Sharkman3472 Your comments get longer and longer, but don't address the issue. I again refer you to 18 U.S.C. § 793, with a reminder that we were engaged in a declared war at the time, with a necessity to transport military hardware by rail and ship. Even without a law, an ounce of common sense suggests that hardware should not be filmed for broadcast on a website visible worldwide. This could have easily led to those ships, or even that port, being attacked. Is that what you would prefer?