You say they can detain me, I ask for what... last time I checked, taking pictures is still legal.
Then why in the hell are you calling the cops and reporting people for taking pictures?
You say they can detain me, I ask for what... last time I checked, taking pictures is still legal.
That's not correct. Any airfield that has a control tower is federal property.David R. Busse said:Huh? Federal property? Maybe an Air Force or Navy base...but airports are typically the property of local government agencies or private parties.
Sam, you're starting to get confrontational, and I really don't understand why. You're presenting points, we're presenting opposing points. That's what discussion forums are all about.SamG said:Let's see... A) In my post, I'm not taking pictures as a journalist, I'm taking pictures as someone who likes airplanes and photography.
That was a weak disclaimer. Are you or are you not a photographer in the news business? You should know the differences between taking pictures on someone's property versus taking pictures from a public location.SamG said:B) I said "I guess". I said that specifically to allow for the possibility I could be wrong.
Because I know where your argument is going. We've seen a variation of it pop up on this forum before.SamG said:C) How am I "abusing" the First Amendment?
Let's say a terrorist is doing the exact same thing. Let's say said terrorist leaves without answering questions from authorities. Should security just "let him go?"SamG said:I set up my camera and tripod and take some pictures. Again, NOT as a journalist. Now, airport security can come ask me to stop, which I would. They can ask me my name, which I don't have to give. You say they can detain me, I ask for what... last time I checked, taking pictures is still legal.
huh? When did I say anything about calling cops? That was svp.Then why in the hell are you calling the cops and reporting people for taking pictures?
The problem is it seems my points are being misconstrued. For example...Sam, you're starting to get confrontational, and I really don't understand why. You're presenting points, we're presenting opposing points. That's what discussion forums are all about.
I agreed earlier I would stop taking pictures if told to do so as long as I was ON their property. However, if I am OFF their property, they shouldn't have the power to stop me.It doesn't matter if you're a journalist or Joe Airplanelover taking pictures. They have the authority to tell you to stop. If you don't comply with that order and cooperate with their questioning, they'll probably end up detaining you as a suspicious person.
Their property, their rules.
So would it have made much of a difference if I said "I could be wrong" instead of "I guess"? For the record, I am no longer a photographer in news. I do understand the difference between taking pictures on public vs. private property. And I thought the general conclusion was you CAN take pictures on private property until told to stop. Which is what I said I would do.That was a weak disclaimer. Are you or are you not a photographer in the news business? You should know the differences between taking pictures on someone's property versus taking pictures from a public location.
Actually I wasn't saying that.Because I know where your argument is going. We've seen a variation of it pop up on this forum before.
You're going to claim that the First Amendment gives you the right to take pictures regardless if you're on public or private property. Somehow, you're going to draw the inference that the First Amendment gives you the ability to take pictures and somehow covers you from answering questions or otherwise cooperating with security agents.
Yes. Because someone taking pictures is not against the law. If you think everyone taking pictures should be questioned, then you support these posters. Because that's exactly what the TSA wants to happen... you see someone taking pictures, let security know.Let's say a terrorist is doing the exact same thing. Let's say said terrorist leaves without answering questions from authorities. Should security just "let him go?"
Well, my view would definitely be different if my plane was blown up, I'd be dead. That aside, I don't think the government should be regulating who's allowed to take pictures vs. who isn't. If they want to make taking pictures of airports/airplanes illegal, go ahead. I disagree with it, but I'd follow the law.I think your view would be much different if your plane was hijacked or blown up mid-flight.
My mistake. I apologize - misread the name.huh? When did I say anything about calling cops? That was svp.
I've not ever heard of this one SVP, and I shoot at the Pentagon a bunch. When did his start?Homeland Security and the DOD add all airports to the list of buildings that are not permitted to be photographed. You can stand on a public sidewalk in Arlington, VA all you want but you still can't legally shoot the Pentagon. I've tried and had security all over me before I could level the stix and fire off ten seconds of video. I think airports are next and it won't matter if you're on a public sidewalk or not.