|
Lawsuit alleging violation of constitutional rights
 |
I have contacted the ALCU about suing the United States for SEction 1983 violations for prohibiting photography at the Pentagon Metro and Union Station.
Anyone interested in being a rep Client?
Posted at 9:29AM, 28 July 2008 PST
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Tom, I thought Pentagon Metro was on Military property and that the rules were set by them.
Isn't there the photography rules posted some where that says Photography is allowed anywhere on the metro except at Pentagon Station and one other place?
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The ACLU contacted me after I testified last week about Union Station. I haven't replied to them yet, but I was going to thank them for their interest and tell them nothing I'd seen actually rose to the level of the lawsuit.
If you think differently, though, go for it.
Personally, I don't see what a lawsuit against Union Station is going to accomplish. They'll continue to make promises, and they'll continue to fail to meet them.
As for the Pentagon station, i'm nearly certain that yes, it's on Pentagon property and is therefore subject to their rules and restrictions.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
erin m (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
 |
The only difference is that a lawsuit gives you a court order and JLL could be held in contempt for violating it. A promise doesn't have the same power.
Having said that I don't think that challenging the Pentagon station rules will get anywhere since it is military property and subject to special rules. As for Union Station lets give the process that began last week a chance to work.
In New York the NYCLU currently has a lawsuit pending against the NYPD for detaining a photographer who was photographing subway entrances as part of a project. Last year the NYCLU settled a lawsuit on behalf of an independent film producer who was detained while filming passing traffic. I believe he got $16,000 and the city was ordered by the court to formalize the photography rules. Last week the city published the new rules which are acceptable to the NYCLU. The lawsuit that is currently pending aims to force the city to re-train all of its police officers with respect to photographer's rights, something the city is resisting. The City of New York doesn't do anything unless a court orders it to. Perhaps DC is different...
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Ditto what Jim said: Union Station currently has several 30-day and 60-day deadlines to meet regarding First Amendment rights and photography as well as re-training of its employees. Those are the same results that you'd get from a lawsuit.
I'm just cranky because the signs banning photography are still up.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Erin, who set those deadlines?
I don't dispute the Pentagon Metro is Pentagon Property, but once they let the public on it, can they forbid photography? If the security interest is such photos are a threat, the public should not be allowed, because anyone with a fibre optic cable in their breast pocket could videotape the whole thing without being noticed.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Acepilot edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
They were set by Eleanor Holmes Norton during last week's hearing.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Right, the non voting member of Congress. A strong argument can be made Union Station authority is acting "under color of official right" as access to the trains is a public right (provided you show your id, etc). Therefore, a deprivation of constitutional rights is grounds for a 1983 action. And a court order, with fines for violations, is a lot stronger than any "order" by a non voting member of Congress (it is not even law).
So if Union Station violates the law at any point in the future, they can be sued (or even if they don't, as the situation can be seen as "capable of repetition, evading review".
The signs alone are enough for a lawsuit.
I am still waiting to hear back from the ACLU
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Maybe I misspoke. Let's try it this way:
The chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management set the deadlines.
I'm not saying a lawsuit won't eventually be the way to go. But why not wait until we actually know the problem will persist?
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
erin m (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Fair enough.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The phoot ban at the Pentagon probably won't go anywhere. Everything there is a political march on the Pentagon, the station is closed. I recalled I was covering one for a wire service a few years ago and a lot of the protesters were furious because the metro station was outside of the containment area set forth by LE. They were demanding right to the station, but was not getting anywhere fast. Metro spokesmen stated that the station is indeed on military property and for due to security and safety concerns would not reopen it.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
That is just my point; if security concerns compel them to CLOSE the station, they have every right to. But once they OPEN the station to the public, can they then withdraw a constitutional right without justification? This is known in constitutional law as the "ratchet' effect, once the government offers right, it cannot withdraw it without due process (or if such withdrawal violates the constitution).
A COMPLETE closure is easy to justify; security concerns trump public access to the station. But opening it to people with fibre optic vidoes in their breast pockets, then claiming they have to ban DSLRS, P&S, seems to be a constitutional violation.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
**Apologies for length off this posting, but it includes an important full press release, below**
Acepilot: Union Station was already the source of a lawsuit regarding public access and usage, details below. The plaintiff won a financial settlement. Unfortunately, that lawsuit did not compel management to institute consistent policies and training.
The congressional venue, however, had remain unused.
Congresswoman Norton only lacks voting power on final passage on the floor of the House. She does hold voting power on the floor in the Committee of the Whole. She holds full voting power in committees and subcommittees.
Far more important for our purposes here, however, Congresswoman Norton holds considerable power in committees and subcommittees.
Norton is chair of the Transportation Committee's Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. That is the very committee with oversight for Union Station. They had not held an oversight hearing in some time; Norton roared their oversight back into gear, and placed our issues front and center.
Norton is also widely respected in Congress for her legal mind, esp. regarding civil liberties.
Norton's directions to station management may not be "the law," but they carry force. I imagine management will comply. If not, the hearing could become part of the legislative intent for, say, an amendment to a transportation bill, turning her request into law.
Press release from the earlier lawsuit:
DEBBY HANRAHAN WINS SETTLEMENT IN FIRST
AMENDMENT-FALSE ARREST LAWSUIT AGAINST AMTRAK; $35,000
TO GO TO LAWYERS GUILD, C.O. GROUP
For Immediate Release: June 5, 2007
Contacts: Debby Hanrahan, (202) 462-2054; Jim
Klimaski, Klimaski & Associates PC, (202) 296-5600
Long-time D.C. Statehood Green Party activist Debby
Hanrahan has won a settlement in her First
Amendment-false arrest lawsuit against Amtrak (The
National Railroad Passenger Corp.) and has directed
that almost all of the settlement proceeds other than
lawyers fees and her expenses go to two local civil
liberties organizations. The two organizations will
receive a total of $35,000.
Hanrahan, 68, a leading participant in the No DC Taxes
for Baseball coalition which opposed public financing
of a new baseball stadium, was arrested without any
warning by Amtrak police in the Grand Concourse in
Washington, D.C.s Union Station on November 22, 2004
during a public rally promoting the naming of the
Washington Nationals baseball team. For quietly
holding a poster opposing public financing, she was
charged with unlawful entry and jailed for 28 hours
before her release on her own recognizance after a
court appearance.
Hanrahan said that a portion of the settlement will go
for fees incurred by the law firm of veteran civil
liberties attorney James Klimaski. Klimaskis firm
took the case on a pro bono basis and spent hundreds
of hours in legal work before Klimaski negotiated the
settlement with Amtrak earlier this month. The suit
was filed in 2005 in D.C. Superior Court, after
Hanrahans criminal attorney, Paul J. Riley,
successfully got the criminal charge dropped in
January 2005.
After lawyers fees, Hanrahan received $45,000. To
help other persons falsely arrested in free speech and
other civil liberties cases, Hanrahan has directed
that $25,000 of this go to the D.C. Chapter of the
National Lawyers Guild and $10,000 to the Center on
Conscience and Wars MCN Legal Fund, an organization
that assists military conscientious objectors. The
remaining $10,000 of the settlement will primarily
cover expenses incurred by Hanrahan in her criminal
case, as well as deposition and expert witness costs
in the civil case.
Hanrahan said that it was her intention from before
she filed this suit to contribute proceeds other than
attorneys fees and criminal and civil case expenses
to progressive legal organizations.
First, I wanted to show Amtrak through this suit that
the First Amendment applies at public meetings held on
its publicly-owned [U.S. Department of Transportation]
space, said Hanrahan. Secondly, I wanted a
settlement or verdict large enough to make meaningful
allocations to organizations that stand up for people
whose rights to freedom of speech, assembly and
conscience have been violated.
The offending poster Hanrahan held called attention in
cartoon form to the spiraling cost of the stadium,
then at $614 million (and now at least $100 million
higher). The poster showed a beaming, top-hatted,
cigar-chomping, fat-cat team owner with then-Mayor
Anthony Williams exulting over the expensive new
stadium amid crumbling public schools and libraries
and a shut-down D.C. General Hospital.
The charge against Hanrahan was dismissed seven weeks
and two court appearances after her arrest. In
subsequent proceedings to expunge Hanrahans arrest
record, the U.S. Attorneys office acknowledged in a
written filing that this court would find, by clear
and convincing evidence that [Hanrahan] did not commit
the offense for which she had been charged. As NBC4
reporter Tom Sherwood wrote on the NBC4 web site and
in The Current newspapers at the time of her arrest:
Hanrahan held aloft a sign criticizing the baseball
deal, but was not disruptive.
I hope this case and settlement send yet another
reminder to police and public officials that they
cannot infringe on individuals free speech rights
because they dont like the message, Hanrahan said.
I was attending a public rally in about as public a
place as you can imagine, to which members of the
public were invited through radio and newspaper
announcements, and which featured on the stage Mayor
Williams and several members of the D.C. Council and
Sports and Entertainment Commission. My crime was
being out of sync with the message of the rally, and
for that I was given no warning and was grabbed in a
painful shoulder hold by an Amtrak policeman, pulled
out of the rally, arrested, charged with trespassing,
incarcerated for 28 hours, and required to give a
urine sample in the presence of both male and female
court and U.S. Marshal personnel. And I had my
free-speech rights substantially chilled as I faced
this criminal charge during a key time period in the
baseball stadium financing fight with a big
mid-December [2004] Council vote scheduled.
Hanrahan praised the work of Klimaski and his
associates in the civil case and of Riley in the
criminal case. She said Klimaski, despite having a
small firm without the deep pockets of major D.C. law
firms, nevertheless took a big financial risk in
taking my case because he recognized that my arrest
was an outrageous violation of my civil liberties, and
that Amtrak had to be shown that there are
consequences for arbitrarily arresting nonviolent
protesters at public meetings held on public
property.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
lightboxdc (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Is Pentagon station private property?
Would that be like a shopping mall? It's a private property but the public is free to enter as long as they abide by their rules? Just curious.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The Pentagon is a military installation, and WMATA shares security responsibilities over the Metro facilities on the Pentagon reservation with the U.S. military. That pretty much ends that discussion.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@Philliefan, not so sure, you might be right, but if they allow public access, I believe they have to have a rational basis for security restrictions (as I noted earlier, they are free to deny access, no question).
The military's right to curtail constitutional rights in the name of security is not absolute, as the Supreme Court has recently noted (Generalissimo Bush has lost more national security cases before the Supreme Court during wartime than any previous President).
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Acepilot edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
 |
The pentagon station is ugly as hell, who wants to shoot there anyway? Seems like a negative reaction to being told you can't shoot, even if you didn't want to in the first place.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
There are many rational bases to prohibit photography at the Pentagon Metro station, the least of which is that the Pentagon is the nerve center of the entire U.S. military. Agree with it or not, any suit challenging the photo ban will face that defense.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I can assure you that you will have a hell of a time fighting the military in something like this. The military is all about security, if they feel that they want to close the Pentagon Station and lock it down, they will. When they feel that they want to open it up to the public they will.
Its called Operational Security and there is nothing that you can do about that.
Good Luck :)
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
So the idea is that because it's the nerve center of the entire Defense of the United States, the constitution does not apply to military installations? Sounds like a weak defense to me.
I work on Fort Dterick and it has a policy of not allowing photograpy in certain areas of the installation. I'll have to ask what laws they use to base these restrictions on. I know of one but I think it's more towards restricting access to certain buildings, it's Section 21 of the Internal Security Act of 1950.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The military holds and has a lot of information that shouldn't and does not need to be seen by everyone, for that matter photographed.
For example, you can not photograph an arms room or draw a diagram in a napkin about the arms room, its against military regulations. And that falls under the Section 21.
I don't want someone that doesn't belong in or around the Pentagon to be there, even if that person is you. If you have no reason to be there then I would do what I have to, to keep you out. If its closing the metro station that is on a military installation then that is what I will do.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
A&D Photography edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
 |
I've said it before, the Pentagon is just a building, and none of the classified military information is visible from the outside, unless the employees are in the habit of placing their computer monitors on the window ledge. I don't see why photography of the outside of the building is prohibited.
This policy has fostered something that actually hurts the military: the 9/11 conspiracy theories. If the general public were permitted/encouraged to photograph the Pentagon, and they were a little more open regarding visitors, there would undoubtedly have been clear, detailed photographs of the jetliner crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11/01. Instead, the security camera footage doesn't show the jet, just the explosion, and hence has given credence to the conspiracy theorists who claim it was a missile. Plus, without dramatic images available like with the WTC, the Pentagon attack has been overshadowed in the popular memory, which is unfortunate.
So, I think allowing photography outside of the Pentagon and in the Metro station would be a good thing, and would actually benefit the military authorities in the event of any future terrorism. Obviously, photography INSIDE the Pentagon should be banned because that's where the classified information is.
On 9/11, I rode my bike down to Hains Point, and watched the Pentagon burning across the river. It was pre-good digital camera, unfortunately. I could smell the burning plastic. A friend of mine at the time worked in the basement level there; fortunately she was OK, but there's no way I'd suggest anything that would seriously jeopardize the security there. Just my $.02...
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Mr. T in DC edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Nothing worng with those scenarios and I would agree with you in those situations.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"I don't want someone that doesn't belong in or around the Pentagon to be there, even if that person is you. If you have no reason to be there then I would do what I have to, to keep you out. If its closing the metro station that is on a military installation then that is what I will do." @A&D, by any chance were you in the military?
Then why does the Pentagon leave the Pentagon Metro Station open for the public? That is my point. They have very right to close it. The point is they demonstrate there is no national security need for the photo restrictions by leaving it open to the public.
I don't doubt they can bar photography in areas within a fort or an "arms room", I doubt the public is invited there anyway, and if they ever are, probably searched for anything that could be used to take a photograph.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"If you have no reason to be there then I would do what I have to, to keep you out."
Stand down, lol. You are completely failing to address the question at hand, which is not outright prohibition of persons from the space in question (the Metro station, not an "arms room", incidentally), but rather the legal standing upon which the particular behavior of photography is restricted within space open to the public.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
lightboxdc (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
@ Acepilot- I am in the military, I have been in secure areas, and been restricted from even more secure area, even being in the military.
Now, Mr. T has valid points and I understand and agree there is is no real reason why you cant photograph the outside of the building, and I don't want to get into the whole conspiracy thing, this thread isn't for that.
They have to draw the line somewhere, and the military will make the rules and you being a civilian is a loosing situation for you.
The military is targeted in many areas, and they are going to protect them selves in the most simplest ways. By restricting photography even when they might be open to the public.
Even if you are in public, and on private property you still can't photograph is they say you cant.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
@lightbox, could not have said it better.
However, if nobody cares about photography in the Pentagon Metro, then why bother (the ability to photography in the 50+ other stations is far more important)? More to the point, no one would want to be a rep plaintiff or testify as an expert that simply responding to civilians with visible cameras is not dealing on a rational basis with any security issues raised by public accessibility to the Station.
And if Union Station truly does cease and desist, not much point there either .
Well, I am busy enough suing Broadway photo . . . . .
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Acepilot edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
It will be interesting to see how things shake out regarding photography at the Pentagon once the 9/11 memorial opens up there (in the fall?). The memorial will be located on the side where the plane hit, and consist of small benches representing each victim, with some water feature (I think) and special landscaping and lighting. It should make for some moving photographs, and the plans are for photography to be allowed. Presumably and understandable, there will be heavy security. I wonder if photos of the memorial will be allowed with the Pentagon facade in the background? Or, only photos facing AWAY will be allowed - showing highways in the background? We'll see - it will be interesting.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
A&D: News flash, nobody inside the borders of this country sets the rules because, to sum up your contributions here, "they wanna and they're gonna" and tough luck for anyone who doesn't like it. That's not exactly how it works. They may have every legal right to restrict photography inside Pentagon station, or, they may not be on strong legal ground prohibiting photography in an area of wide-open public access. But the question is not resolved by your repeated boot-stomping assertions.
As for the memorial, I have photographed events at the Pentagon. They often host events where photography is not only allowed, but encouraged.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
lightboxdc (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Okay,
Ashbox you win, you think that you know the military and their rules for security. Ill let you walk away with your head held high.
Im sorry if you think that Im "boot-stomping."
And if you think that anybody sets the rules because of me, your wrong, they set the rules because of you. You are the one that thinks that you can walk onto military property just because your a photographer, Im sorry to let you know guy that it doesn't work that way.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
A&D, tell us, what do you do in the military? I don't want to try to change your mind, just curious where your perspective comes from.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Just for the record, A&D is a really nice guy, I've met him at the Flickr social meetups and am grateful for his military service, as well as everyone else serving in uniform. I can totally understand where his perspective comes from, and it sounded to me like he was just stating a reality we may not agree with but nevertheless exists.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The rules are not set because of lightboxdc, your assuming his intent is to do harm and your lumping him with all the other bad elements that want to harm this country. That isn't a fair assumption.
I am a veteran of the US Army, did my time and got out, you are 100% correct in how they set the rules, but that doesn't mean the process they used to set those rules was correct. It also doesn't mean you should blindly follow the rules they set. I'm not suggesting an outright disobedience of the rules, but there is nothing wrong with questioning them. It also doesn't mean that the methods they use to enforce these rules are correct either.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I think this lawsuit will not result in changes to the pentagon policy, and will pretty much fall down and fail whether it should or should not.
But it might highlight issues that are related and important. And it might be the defense against creep of no photo permitters widening, etc.
I wouldn't see this as a suit to create positive change, but perhaps one to protect against possible, creeping, slipping away of rights through no one noticing.
Does that make sense?
For that reason, I can see what I at least think drew the ACLU to it.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Acepilot- I'm involved in Personnel Security, Movement Security, Force Protection, and Im a soldier. I know about security.
Mr. T- you deserve the thank you for the support that you show to men and women in the armed service. And from me, you are more than welcome. Thank you again.
JR- If you are a veteran, and like you stated you understand the military, makes me wonder who you, and what you understand.
I never said that the military is right for what they have decided, if you read above I said that I didn't see anything wrong with photographing the outside of the building.
And if you think that I'm "Blindly following the rules" please think again. I agree that the military does things that they shouldn't be able to do, Im just stating what I have saw, and know about military security.
Katmere- I agree, that it might highlight issues that are related and important to why the Pentagon says you cant photograph in that metro station. It is not inside the Pentagon, but it is on military property. You wont be able to change that.
I thank you all for your input.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"You are the one that thinks that you can walk onto military property just because your a photographer, Im sorry to let you know guy that it doesn't work that way."
Well gee I dunno what to thank you more for: putting words in my mouth or offering up a sharp retort to the words I never said.
Anyway, I actually feel a lawsuit wouldn't be the way to go, but I remain interested in the legal question regardless. It could be entirely their call on their property, or not so much. My bet is on the former (surprise, A&D).
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Re Pentagon memorial: photography will be allowed on the site without restrictions. The military is taking steps to meet its security needs to fit with that policy. The memorial will be open and accessible to the public 24/7 except during special events.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
That's great news, phillie. I've found that people at the Pentagon have been wonderful when photography is anticipated. When the Pentagon offers up their space for community events, for example, a photographer couldn't have a more organized or enjoyable experience.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
lightboxdc (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Wow, good news philliefan and lightbox!
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The Pentagon is an office building, and not exactly easy to miss. Taking photos of it from the outside could not endanger national security, and it is laughable to suggest otherwise. Unlike Cheney's house, it's location on Google Earth has not been pixelated.
I used to work there. The stuff we had in the office was not the most classified stuff in the world, but our windows in the D ring were covered, I guess just in case the people in the E ring were spying on us! I only once went to a location where the really secret stuff is kept. Trust me, nobody, let alone a innocent tourist photographer, could get in it or near it without a lot of rigmarole. It was all that security crap, and the uptight military attitude about everything that drove me from the place. Not a pleasant place to work, really. The best view of it is in the rear-view mirror.
The Pentagon Metro station looks exactly like all the other stations. The military attitude is, however, unless you need to know/see/do something, you don't get to know/see/do something. "Need to know" is the basis of all classified work. "Three may keep a secret if two are dead." as B Franklin once said. So someone taking pictures of the Pentagon Metro is assumed to be a risk unless proven otherwise.
So, if you want pictures of the Pentagon Metro station, go to Pentagon City, and photoshop out the word "City". No one will be able to tell.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
v1rotate edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
How about this; they're not violating anyone's rights?
It's private property. If you're on private property you have to abide by the owner's rules or leave, right? I mean, if you're going to sue the US for not allowing you to photography on Pentagon property, then sue Charles Town Races & Slots for not allowing you to take pictures on their property and any air port or industrial facility. If half of the rail was off of the Pentagon land and half was on, you could shoot from the half off of their property and not have a problem with it.
It's like I posted above about shopping malls. Try suing a shopping mall because they have rules that say you can't photograph in their facility without their permission and I'm sure the judge would look at you funny because you're basically trespassing on private property.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
cokronk edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
How is it "private property"? As a taxpayer, I paid for that station, same as everyone else. That makes it "public property". The rules in the Pentagon Metro are based on it being a military post.
A shopping mall, otoh, is purely a private enterprise. However, as a customer, if a mall has strict rules against photography, they won't be getting any of my business.
Union Station falls in a grey area. The signs stating it is private property are not exactly accurate.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
The Pentagon is NOT private property - or has our military been privatized and we don't know about it? Having said that there are laws against photographing military facilities so I am not arguing the issue - only the statement that it is private property. The reason photography can be prohibited there is because of the statute on photography of military facilities NOT because it is private property.
Then again I wouldn't be surprised if they ever do privatize the Pentagon ;-)
As for Union Station it is NOT private property either - it is the property of the United States Government and has been leased to a private company to manage.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Jim P Photography edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
 |
The Pentagon is no different than any other US military reservation/installation anywhere in the world. Just head on over to Ft Myer, Andrews AFB, Bolling AFB or any military installation anywhere and stand across the street on your very public sidewalk and start taking photos of the Gate with a big camera and see just how fast the authorities show up. They may not confiscate anything or detain you, but they will check you out. It's about limiting the gathering of intelligence, pure and simple.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Fun story:
In an attempt to get Metro's official rationalization for prohibiting photography at the Pentagon station, I e-mailed the Blue Line manager as well as the general customer service contact. I haven't heard back yet, but the automated response did include this warning (emphasis mine):
Metro would like to remind you that customers play an important role in keeping our system safe.
Please remember to be watchful for . . .
*Unusual persons or activities
*Unattended bags, packages, boxes, backpacks, etc.
*Persons photographing, sketching or documenting activity at or around Metro stations
You, too, can receive an e-mail like this of your very own, just by e-mailing csvc@wmata.com. Drop them a line, tell them how you feel about their attitude toward photography, which, contrary to the e-mail's implication, is absolutely allowed on Metro and is not suspicious in any way.
Better yet, Metro General Manager John Catoe will be online Friday afternoon at 1 taking questions. Go ahead, submit one. Ask him why the customer service e-mail, contrary to official Metro policy, treats photographers as something to fear.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
erin m (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
Did it!
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
It's not the Metro's rationalization that photography is prohibited at the Pentagon. It's DOD's rationalization that it's prohibited. You don't see "photography prohibited" signs in any other metro stop but the Pentagon.
Let's use some common sense when reading these rules. No one cares that any of us take photos in metro stops. Some eager security guard may ask at some point, but they'll quickly figure out you're not the bad guy they are watching for. And, they'll move on and leave you alone if you are nice to them. (We all figured out a long time ago that being confrontational with a police officer who has just pulled you over for speeding is a sure fire way to land the maximum fine. Same applies in this case.) It's the photographer who appears at regular intervals photographing the same scene day after day that they are concerned with. The terrorist who bombed the trains in Europe studied and photographed the train system for months before they attacked. That's the kind of suspicious activity they are asking us to be on the look out for. And as I stand in a metro stop with my camera in hand, if I notice a photog that looks suspicious to me, I'm gonna do what they ask, and report it.
If one of our trains is ever bombed, and the investigation shows somebody was photographing that train daily for months, we'll all be calling for the Metro Security Chief's career to come to an end.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
threewhln edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
@threewhln: "It's the photographer who appears at regular intervals photographing the same scene day after day that they are concerned with." I'm about to leave for work, as I often do at this time of day. I'll probably have my camera, and I'll probably snap a shot or two on the way. I appear regularly at the same Metro stop taking photos at roughly the same time of day. Broad generalizations about what terrorists will and will not do are not particularly useful, especially when they also apply to thousands of regular commuters.
And after the terrorists bombed transit systems in Europe, you know who the police turned to for clues? Photographers. London police asked for amateur still and video taken of the areas before and after the attacks, hoping someone might have caught something that could offer more information. And the NYPD has just announced that it will be doing something similar on a regular basis.
If our trains are ever bombed, I'd probably look a bit higher up the food chain than the Metro security chief.
And you're right about one thing: No one cares that any of us take photos in Metro stops. Or they shouldn't, anyway. Which makes this warning all the more ridiculous. Metro allows photography. Period. The mixed message that warning sends out just fuels an irrational suspicion of photographers in Metro and outside the Metro system.
You give Metro employees too much credit. They won't "quickly figure out you're not the bad guy they are watching for." What they will do, as incidents over the years have shown, is make up a photography ban and escort you out of the system. No amount of protesting on your part will be able to convince them that Metro allows photography.
EDIT: And as for the Pentagon, no matter whose policy it is, it's the Metro employees posting it and enforcing it. Metro is responsible for its own stations. The DOD may have asked them to prohibit photography, but Metro didn't have to say yes. That's why I'm trying to get the real answer out of Metro, but I'm not having much luck.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
erin m (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
First of all, believe me, I'm on your side on this. I too think it's sad that we've lost so much of our freedom due to the aftermath of 9/11. Enough time has passed that the rules/laws should have been settled and those who are employed to enforce the rules should all be on that same page by now. Obviously there is much left to do, and voicing those concerns only helps continue that process (in theory).
But, I spent over 24 years in uniform, the last 3 being in the Pentagon. I worked in the retail world for a couple of years, and have been back in the Pentagon for a couple of years as a civilian. That experience causes me to see it from a different perspective. Note, I didn't say I see it from the "right" perspective, just a different one. Providing the kinds of security that the American people expect, while at the same time protecting the citizen's rights is very tough. I'm glad I'm not the guy making those decisions. Terrorist plotters are very skilled at looking like the regular commuters who are in the transit system daily. Security is bound to stop some ordinary commuters from time to time in their efforts.
I was shooting on the Mall last fall early in the morning. I was using a tripod and two light stands. A park policeman came over to tell me I could not do that. He approached me as if he was expecting me to be uncooperative. I honestly didn't know there was a Tripod rule. I told him that and explained what I was trying to do. Showed him my paperwork outlining what I was doing. I showed him the pics I had taken so far, and he then asked me how long I needed to finish. I told him not long. There was a tour group unloading from a bus, and he simply asked that I get finished and pack my gear before they got to my location. Easy. Even emailed him a pic later. If I'd gotten a little rude with him, I think I'd have be escorted out of the place. I let him do his job, and he let me have my fun.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
threewhln edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
 |
Threewhin, I think when you were approached on the Mall, it wasn't because there is a "tripod rule" but rather that you were using two light stands. If you were approached because of the tripod, most likely it was improper for the park policeman to do so.
Unless you were in a heavy-traffic area, such as at the feet of Abe, you may use a tripod on the Mall without a permit for non-commercial uses just as you can use a tripod without a permit at any other NPS property in the country. And by "non-commercial," that is generally interpreted not by what your intent with the images is but rather how disruptive a photographer is being by having crews, extra lighting, etc. The lighting you were using might have been an issue, but the tripod by itself should not have been.
I have previously verified all this by calling the NPS and speaking with the appropriate personnel about their rules regarding tripods.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Depending on where you were shooting at the mall, there actually isn't a tripod rule.
I agree with you that the right attitude goes a long way toward making incidents go smoothly. Many, many guards are happy to chat, and I, too, have found that being friendly often makes all the difference.
BUT that doesn't work all the time. If a Metro employee (or a park police officer) is dead set on telling you that photography is not allowed, you have little recourse at the time. That's why I'm so pushy about making sure policies are clearly articulated at the supervisory level.
EDIT: THis is a thread with more detail about the tripod policy on the mall. I agree with Capitolshots that it was probably the other equipment that drew their attention to you. But see what I mean about the policy not being clear?
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
erin m (a group admin) edited this topic 17 months ago.
|
|
I researched it as well following the incident. I was in the wrong as it was a high traffic area. Fortunately, it was very early before the crowds appeared. That rule makes sense to me, and I was there early for that very reason. Tripods take up space and can be a safety hazard, not to mention that my expensive camera could be damaged by someone tripping over a tripod leg. I'd never consider using any stands in heavy traffic areas.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
"The terrorist who bombed the trains in Europe studied and photographed the train system for months before they attacked."
Really? Read the second paragraph of the article linked below. If you know of photography having played a role in the plot (we know it played a role in solving some investigations), let us know. Otherwise, I think it's important that we not make the very same assumptions that have led, in part, to the situation we're trying to correct:
www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Because this discussion branched off into another, I'm reposting a response I just posted for people who come late to the party or just read through this particular thread.
Metro's official position on Pentagon photography is this:
The federal law that prohibits photographing at the Pentagon Metrorail station is Code of Federal Regulation (C.F.R.) Part 234, Section 15 (C.F.R.234.15). As mentioned in previous emails this regulation is enforced by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency.
That actual code states: The use of cameras or other visual recording devices in restricted areas or in internal offices must be approved by the Department of Defense component occupying the space. Photographs for advertising or commercial purposes may only be taken with the permission of the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
Which means a) the Pentagon Metro stop is a restricted area? and b) they *could* allow photography. They just choose not to.
Posted 17 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
DC Photo Rights /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to DC Photo Rights discussion threads
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
