|
|
| Re: Amtrak: 400 Trapped Inside 2 Passenger Trains Near Donner Pass (681137) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Amtrak: 400 Trapped Inside 2 Passenger Trains Near Donner Pass |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Sun Sep 14 12:39:55 2008, in response to Re: KTLA CONFIRMS: Re: Metrolink engineer texting with railfans, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Sep 14 12:24:59 2008. They might try but case law would be against them since the right to photography from public space has been repeatedly upheld by courts.Here is a case where an ambulance crew refused to remove a body alleging interference by a photographer. The last sentence is of interest here and although it references the "press", constitutionally freedom of the press and free expression does not only refer to the mainstream media. Any artistic expression is covered: Connell v. Town of Hudson, 733 F.Supp. 465 (D.N.H. 1990): News photographer brought action against town for violation of his First Amendment rights. The Chief Judge, held that police officers violated news photographer's First Amendment rights at automobile accident scene to extent that restrictions they imposed upon him were greater than those necessary to prevent his unreasonable interference with police and emergency functions. Facts: photographer used several different methods to stay out of the cops way while taking accident photos and the cops threatened his arrest. He sued for damages and the cops defended by saying that they could regulate who could gather the news. The Court said: Defendants' most persuasive argument is that emergency personnel refused to remove Mrs. Cote's body until Connell stopped taking pictures. But even that fact does not provide the justification necessary to withstand judicial scrutiny. Although the emergency personnel and police may have thought it wrong for Connell to photograph the accident, it is not for them to protect “the privacy rights of the victim Mrs. Cote and the sensibilities of her family,” Defendants' Motion at 3, even in an attempt to curtail what they thought were the voyeuristic interests of a freelance photographer.FN6 As made clear by the United States Supreme Court, such are the dangers intrinsic to our notion of a free press. |
|
|
|