Feds forced to admit that it's legal to take pictures of federal buildings

The New York Civil Liberties Union and Libertarian activist Antonio Musumeci just won a court case that affirms the right of photographers to take pictures and record video out front of federal courthouses. The US federal government settled the case by apologizing to Musumeci for his arrest, acknowledging that it is legal to record at courthouses, and promising to issue guidelines to federal officers explaining this fact to them.

"Not only will this settlement end harassment of photographers outside federal courthouses, it will free people to photograph and film outside of all federal buildings," said NYCLU Associate Legal Director Christopher Dunn, lead counsel in the case. "The regulation at issue in this case applies to all federal buildings, not only courthouses, so this settlement should extend to photography near all federal buildings nationwide.

NYCLU Settlement Ends Restriction on Photography Outside Federal Courthouses (Thanks, Harkina, via Submitterator)

(Image: Federal Courthouse, a Creative Commons Attribution (2.0) image from seanmcgee's photostream)

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: Action

More at Boing Boing

Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy

The Snowden Principle

glatt1

Call my cynical, but I doubt this ruling will change much of anything. Security guards and cops don’t like people taking pictures of government buildings, so they are going to stop photographers from doing that, regardless of this ruling.
traalfaz

Guidelines won’t matter. The cops will still harass and possibly even arrest people for taking photos.
NYC and London have both issued guidelines for their officers saying that it’s not illegal to take photos in public places, and the cops in both of those places still harass and arrest people for doing so. The law is the same most everywhere else, and though most cities haven’t issued guidelines, the cops still harass photographers on public streets and in train stations and airports all over.
Anonymous

I would like to know the details of this court case (its unique identifier, if you will), so that I can print it out on a card and carry it with me.
Anonymous

When you have a DSLR camera and possibly a tripod you are a terrorist and you need to be questioned, detained, imprisoned and possibly tortured. In the age of 5-8-12 and 14 megapixel phones the terrorists all recognize the superiority of the large sensor and they use full frame and medium format cameras only when photographing in preparation for their attacks. They need the extra sharpness and megapixels so they can make huge enlargements of their targets. They can not stand pixel mush in their mission critical photos. The authorities all over the world are wise to these facts and they have prevented many thousands of attacks from happening.

Same goes for pedophiles. Now they are all equipped with the 800mm Canon lens and they need to be arrested on sight. You never know with them long lenses. They are either shooting your kids or a bird’s kids so they can share with their pervert friends on the internet!
marpeck

Actually I think it’s considerably more complex than this. If all we needed to do in order to be ethical was draw some lines and follow them then I think more people would be moral in more easily predictable ways. Cue the 10 commandments or the categorical imperative or Rawls original position. It is the great difficulty of collecting information and figuring out where the line is that shows the problem with line based ethics ever working. Its why you needed to clarify this point showing that chris was on a line that bb had drawn. I believe that ethics is much more about being a good person and doing good things (which I learn by observing other good people and not just the lines that they draw) and therefore NOT engaging in the kind of baiting which opened this thread. The rules work to regulate a comment forum but as a question of morality dave’s initial question is right on.
Anonymous

The state of Texas insists that it is unlawful to take “panoramic” photographs if it’s buildings for security reasons. By the way, In Texas one can get sent to prison for taking pictures of people with their heads left off. The fact scenario that the prosecutors have been going with is shots of children in places where they usually congregate. Its a product of a vague law that does not require an invasion of privacy for a voyeurism charge.
adamnvillani

For what it’s worth, not all cops or security guards are insane about picture-taking. I work in Los Angeles City Hall, and tourists frequently photograph the building (it’s a beautiful building). I’ve never seen one harassed for it.

It’s important that police or security know what they can or can’t do. If they’re harassing people for taking photos, that’s a failure chain going up the authority ladder, but it is fixable.
TinSoldier

Although this SHOULD have been a big fat red firetruck “duh” and should never have wasted the time of the courts…
Anonymous

I would print out a copy of this decision and carry it with me if I were a photographer.
ADavies

Thanks to NYCLU for explaining the obvious in court. Someone’s got to do it.
Chris Tucker

Bootkissers claiming that Antonio Musumeci was being a dick and brought all this trouble on himself by acting like a dick, in 3…2…1…
- davejenk1ns
  
  Chris,
  
  Forgive me for the meta-comment, but why do commenters do what you’re trying to do? Why do some people always try to “pre-frame” what they see as an us-vs-them argument that will erupt in the thread? Doesn’t adding such a comment as yours actually invite or exacerbate the problem of defining such clear lines?
  
  I’ve never understood those comments that invariably contain “Republitard apologists in 3..2..1…” or “Democratic pussies in 3…2..1…” or “Cthulu deniers in 3…2..1…” Isn’t that just a way to sneak in juvenile name-calling for what you percieve as the opposition, framed as a pre-emptive attack on “the other side” as destroying what would otherwise be a useful discussion?
  - Chris Tucker
    
    Why did I make that comment?
    
    Because the bootkissers (RE: “Kiss The Shiny, Shiny Boots of Leather” a Lou Reed song) ALWAYS show up, with claims that the arrested/harassed party wanted to cause trouble, wanted to be a dick to a cop, refused to obey the reasonable request of the long-suffering cop, etc.
    
    The ops can do no wrong, and when they do, it’s oly because they were pushed beyond all reasonable limits by some dick confronting them and refusing to “respect mah athoraty!”
    
    For example, the bootkissers here defending the actions of “Officer Bubbles”.
    
    Indeed, there were people defending that cop in New York City who attacked a bike rider.
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQD3hgNtYN4
    
    Despite the evidence of video showing him attacking a bike rider, AND HIS official report where he lies though his teeth about the incident, accusing the bike rider of assaulting him.
    
    Even in light of the video, the bootkissers flocked to rationalize his behavior.
    
    My comment? An exercise in preventative measures to limit the amount of bootkisser bullshit.
  - Antinous / Moderator
    
    Doesn’t adding such a comment as yours actually invite or exacerbate the problem of defining such clear lines?
    
    Morality, ethics and character pretty much consist of drawing some lines and not crossing them. Permit me to direct you to this excerpt from our Comment Policy: Please don’t suggest that the victim “had it coming” in a civil liberties/human rights thread unless you have some evidence to support your claim.
    - davejenk1ns
      
      Antinous,
      
      I’m confused by your comment and quotation from the comment policy. Who is the victim? Where does the morality come into play? In your opinion, did someone violate that comment policy? If so, who? Me? Chris? The subsequent commenter that Chris anticipates with his “3..2..1″ lure?
      
      Please elucidate– this is the core of the issue for me, thanks.
      - Antinous / Moderator
        
        Antonio Musumeci is the victim. If Chris Tucker was ‘defining a clear line’, it’s a line that BB has already drawn.
      - davejenk1ns
        
        okay, thanks. That is what I hoped you had meant.
        
        saludos.
imag

The whole apologist thing is interesting to me in two ways:

1. No matter what you say on the internet, someone will disagree. My theory is that it’s a human safety mechanism designed to prevent pure groupthink, which could be dangerous to the species. Imagine if cultism covered every member of society. Dissent, however reactionary, prevents that.

2. It reminds me of a phenomenon that was called out in one of those pop psych books like Brain Rules, where people of a group will disassociate from someone who has had something bad happen to him or her, because the public doesn’t want to believe that the same thing might happen to them. The example the book gave was a rape case, where the prosecution is unlikely to put women of similar age to the victim on the jury, opting instead for older men. The prosecution knows that women, in order to maintain the pretense that they are safe, often blame the rape victim for the rape. Older men, on the other hand, tend to view the victim from a fatherly perspective, and tend to demand vengeance. My pet theory is that BoingBoing apologists are, in the same vein, trying to make themselves feel safer by blaming the victim.

My point is that neither of the above phenomena is likely to change. Both may in fact provide some measure of solace and/or societal safety mechanism. But no matter what people say, I thank this guy and the NYCLU for fighting this!
Daemon

Of course, all evidence in the past has been that the officers never actually read any such guidelines.