BF2S Forums Taking photos of stuff without 'aesthetic value' illegal in Long Beach

It looks like a nice way of banning people from photographing or videotaping police without actually having a law forbidding it. That's my very cynical initial thoughts without doing some more research.

Actually it's not illegal to take aesthetically unpleasant photos. From a link within your link.

McDonnell spoke for a follow-up story on a June 30 incident in which Sander Roscoe Wolff, a Long Beach resident and regular contributor to Long Beach Post, was detained by Officer Asif Kahn for taking pictures of a North Long Beach refinery.

"If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery," says McDonnell, "it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual." McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters.

McDonnell says that while there is no police training specific to determining whether a photographer's subject has "apparent esthetic value," officers make such judgments "based on their overall training and experience" and will generally approach photographers not engaging in "regular tourist behavior."

This policy apparently falls under the rubric of compiling Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) as outlined in the Los Angeles Police Department's Special Order No. 11, a March 2008 statement of the LAPD's "policy …  to make every effort to accurately and appropriately gather, record and analyze information, of a criminal or non-criminal nature, that could indicate activity or intentions related to either foreign or domestic terrorism."

http://www.lbpost.com/life/greggory/12188
Also

After running Wolff's driver's license, Kahn left the scene without ordering Wolff to desist.

So there is no law that stopping people from taking pictures of poop if they want to and the officer was merely making sure Wolff wasn't up to something nefarious.

If they go too far, someone is going to slap them with a 1st Amendment lawsuit...

Doesn't sound like anyone cares if you take pictures of rocks or poop... This is simply something that is saying police are allowed to question people photographing potential terrorist targets. Not arrest... Not go to jail... Just to see what is up. Exactly like police are already expected to do everyday, everywhere... You see what looks like some guys casing a bank, you see what is up. If you see a bunch of AKs in the back of their car, you take action. If you see they are having difficulty filling out a loan application, you wish them good luck and move on. Police are proactive as much as reactive. Thank God.

The whole article is a giant anti-police, anti-government trolling attempt.

"Yeah, I saw that guy kick in your front door, but nobody called us, so I didn't want to risk offending a home owner's civil rights by investigating it... I just figured I would wait until I got a call."

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Long Beach is one of the busiest ports in the world, so I would expect a decently heightened level of security.

AussieReaper wrote:

Because terrorism.

Wow you're stupid.

Its because freedom.

Gotta protect that freedom, like the freedom to factory farm

Now, bills introduced in Florida and Iowa state legislatures would make photography, video, or audio recording of agricultural operations illegal without written permission of the farm's owner. In Florida, violations would be punishable by up to 30 years in prison, according to the proposed Senate Bill 1246 (SB 1246). A similar law (HF589) passed the Iowa state House of Representatives. In a Washington Post article, agricultural industry representatives and lawmakers say the Iowa bill is intended to stop animal rights organizations from filming undercover videos that misrepresent farming operations. Wilton Simpson, a Florida farmer, says that the bill is needed to protect the intellectual property of his farming practices.

http://www.dvafoto.com/2011/03/two-us-s … perations/

Just how much IP is in farming?
Is the patent system not available to farmers?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-08-23 02:52:15)

presidentsheep wrote:

Seems pretty fair to me, would have to be a pretty dickish cop to arrest you for taking pictures of a rock. Doubt it would get very far with the prosecution either. Stopping people taking pictures of industrial stuff could be sensible.

If it's visible from a public beach, you should be able to take photos of it in most cases.

http://www.legalandrew.com/2007/10/11/p … in-public/

It's actually illegal to be ugly and walk the streets of San Francisco.

This photo law is another one of those laws where "Ugly" is yet to be defined, so we'll see if they actually come up with a definition or standard for "Aesthetic value"

AussieReaper wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

It's actually illegal to be ugly and walk the streets of San Francisco.

apparently AR survived. any word of Jeakus?