First Amendment Protects: Strippers? Photographers? Anyone? Or?
"Cops Target Photographers
This author is one of the victims.
By Carlos Miller
Published on July 10, 2008
With camera in hand, Momoko Sudo headed from her Schenley Park home to the Biltmore Hotel gym for her morning workout. It was June 10, and the sun was bursting through the clouds after an early-morning shower. The demure 39-year-old Japanese artist paid particular attention to the raindrops on the leaves. She planned to photograph them.
Drawn by the picturesque entry into Coral Gables via Coral Way, she crossed Red Road and strolled along a sidewalk until she spotted a police officer sitting on his motorcycle talking on a cell phone. Thinking it a good image, she snapped a photo and continued walking.
'Come here!' Ofcr. Nelson Rodriguez barked. Then he demanded her camera. Soon he deleted more than 150 photos. He ripped out the memory card and slammed it on the sidewalk.
'I was very upset,' says Sudo, who stands five feet two inches talls and considers herself a passive person. 'But I didn't want to say anything because he was very big and angry.'
The incident is one of at least four that have occurred in Miami-Dade County over the past year in which photographers have ended up arrested, handcuffed, threatened, intimidated, or accused of being a terrorist. (I spent 16 hours in jail as a result of one of them.) Taken together, they raise the question of whether the First Amendment means anything anymore. 'Officers do not have the right to seize cameras, look at the images, or delete the images,' says Oregon attorney Bert Krages, who wrote The Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images."
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2008-07-10/…
I vote it protects the government by giving the facade of freedom and fundamental fairness. It is like in the drug zones you could at one time see people dealing and using and the police looked the other way for whatever noble or ignoble reasons. Because there was NO fist of law currently directed at these individuals some believed that this proved they had liberty as long as they weren't violating their neighbor's rights or being an asshole. Tempting it is to accept such a vision when the alternative is that you're just very fortunate not have met the government's fist firsthand.
To those who believe they have freedom of speech, I would say your freedom is as secure as your right to bear arms or your right to travel or your right to sovereignty over your own body or any other purported right. In other words it is pathetic joke to be decided at the whim of government at any level and those who involuntarily serve it to protect their asses.
Bottom line: You might get away with enjoying a stripper. You might get away with taking a few photos. You will NOT, immhoo, get away with photographing strippers!!! LOL!!! :)
This author is one of the victims.
By Carlos Miller
Published on July 10, 2008
With camera in hand, Momoko Sudo headed from her Schenley Park home to the Biltmore Hotel gym for her morning workout. It was June 10, and the sun was bursting through the clouds after an early-morning shower. The demure 39-year-old Japanese artist paid particular attention to the raindrops on the leaves. She planned to photograph them.
Drawn by the picturesque entry into Coral Gables via Coral Way, she crossed Red Road and strolled along a sidewalk until she spotted a police officer sitting on his motorcycle talking on a cell phone. Thinking it a good image, she snapped a photo and continued walking.
'Come here!' Ofcr. Nelson Rodriguez barked. Then he demanded her camera. Soon he deleted more than 150 photos. He ripped out the memory card and slammed it on the sidewalk.
'I was very upset,' says Sudo, who stands five feet two inches talls and considers herself a passive person. 'But I didn't want to say anything because he was very big and angry.'
The incident is one of at least four that have occurred in Miami-Dade County over the past year in which photographers have ended up arrested, handcuffed, threatened, intimidated, or accused of being a terrorist. (I spent 16 hours in jail as a result of one of them.) Taken together, they raise the question of whether the First Amendment means anything anymore. 'Officers do not have the right to seize cameras, look at the images, or delete the images,' says Oregon attorney Bert Krages, who wrote The Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images."
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2008-07-10/…
I vote it protects the government by giving the facade of freedom and fundamental fairness. It is like in the drug zones you could at one time see people dealing and using and the police looked the other way for whatever noble or ignoble reasons. Because there was NO fist of law currently directed at these individuals some believed that this proved they had liberty as long as they weren't violating their neighbor's rights or being an asshole. Tempting it is to accept such a vision when the alternative is that you're just very fortunate not have met the government's fist firsthand.
To those who believe they have freedom of speech, I would say your freedom is as secure as your right to bear arms or your right to travel or your right to sovereignty over your own body or any other purported right. In other words it is pathetic joke to be decided at the whim of government at any level and those who involuntarily serve it to protect their asses.
Bottom line: You might get away with enjoying a stripper. You might get away with taking a few photos. You will NOT, immhoo, get away with photographing strippers!!! LOL!!! :)
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
7 comments
Seeing a drug raid going on in the house next door, two adult brothers ran over with video cameras and taping the raid. Needless to say, they ended up arrested.
The brothers got a good lawyer, who brilliantly subpoenaed Sheriff Department emails. Suddenly, all levels of the department were deleting emails we all get-with racist or raunchy jokes. That these emails were on public computers created a stink in the press.
The number two guy was forced to resign. The Republican Sheriff, has been asked by his party to resign. The department is being reorganized as the emails proved that the department had a secret squad with secret funding, and a big name architect had a sweetheart deal with the Sheriff.
I hope Momoko Sudo gets herself a lawyer and has that cop looking for a new job-without a peace officer license.
Re: Strip Clubs. The Supreme Court has been all over this issue with strip clubs. The Supremes are clear that freedom of expression does not include touching, so high mileage is definitely out. The Supremes also like that states and cities should be able to set limits on clothing, distance from customers, and zoning. Right now, at least half of the strip joints in Houston are ignoring a fed backed local ordinance that has draconian provisions-distance, touching, zoning, and clothing. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on this one.
A few years or so back I was with a relative who wanted to assert his "rights." I wouldn't even assert that his legal position was valid or invalid and I wouldn't give a flying fuck if a legal expert such as a top-notch lawyer expert in that area assured the relative that he was well within his rights. Those assurances mean jack shit when your sitting in a government prison depending on the mercy or the reason of some government judge.
I basically said to the officer arrest him because he is the one who wishes to assert his rights. I just wish to comply with your lawful orders. Of course, my relative got all bent out of shape and I silenced his ass real quick, to wit: I asked the relative who do you trust more the police officer here or some judge? Yep, suddenly Mr. "I've got rights" Relative started to see the light ever so slowly. The whole situation was diffused and the point is to OBEY. It isn't a difficult concept unless you've been brainwashed that you have a bunch of "freedoms" and "rights."
The experience was positive in the sense that relative wasn't his normal flag waving self after the confrontation. No more yapping about how he fought to protect people's freedoms. Of course, he was more depressed and that is an excellent reason to deny reality. Maybe why the U.S. population is the BIG DRUGGIE of the world?
I will say that generally I've been very well treated by the police and that is where my supposed rights if any are much more likely to be respected.
Holy shit.
That is actually pretty insightful for tuscl!
I can easily imagine some readers thinking INSANE instead of INSIGHTFUL. :) Glad you found it insightful, as least for tuscl!
As for trusting a cop and not trusting a judge, it may depend on the situation. During the civil rights revolution, where blacks started getting their rights to go through the front door, eat at the lunch counter, vote in elections, live in a decent house, etc., we saw plenty of examples of bad cops and good judges.
But I agree, in certain other situations you are better off to hope for a break from the cop than from the judge.
In other countries you may not need the discretionary cash to buy the best drugs. Lebanon according to a buddy who is from there has excellent drugs basically for free e.g. hashish, opium. It is illegal, but a total non-priority thus dealers can't get rich. He claims they're are a lot better ways to have fun in Lebanon and there just isn't a significant culture of getting high except perhaps in the boonies. BTW, he fled to the US only because of the war and loves the US for giving him safety---NO interest in American women or culture, however. South America the same deal. I've heard the discretionay cash argument before and it seems like most in the U.S. are debtors worried about paying the bills; a stress in very a stressful corrupt country. Could be discretionary income is the key, but I doubt it.
I wouldn't necessarily see those as good judges *in the least* because I believe in freedom of association and freedom of contract and most importantly freedom from the government making all manner of decisions for the individual. The government force and fraud of law created a social environment of widespread evil against blacks. Judges from what I saw had their own evil to peddle with the same force and fraud of law.
Are there examples of good judges? Sure. For example, there was a case where a young black youth who was arrested for a "drive by." He wasn't guilty and it was just a fraud mostly likely by an *angry and disgusted white police officer*. The black youth got lucky as hell that he got the right judge because in this nasty court system he could easily have been doing years and years in prison for nothing. :(
My freedom and security are almost zero with the judges and for the most part they're corrupted by $$$'s in their eyes. So because I'm white and *hopefully* the officers will see me as *white*, not a given, btw, especially amongst more intelligent officers, then I'd rather see the police calling the shots especially if $$$'s aren't dangled before their eyes corrupting them. No, I'm not "guilty" of violating the one drop rule----the rule that makes a white a black if there is a trace of negro blood.
Getting a break from cop---innocent or guilty is not nearly as sure because the courts have tended to corrupt their way of thinking and their respect for human dignity and safety as well as good versus evil.