Photography Defense

This blog is dedicated to the defense of public photography. During the last decade we have witnessed an increase in the number of laws aimed at criminalizing public photography. In Texas, the two  main culprits are Improper Photography and the "Interference with public duties" law. The latter law makes it illegal to record on-duty police officers. You would think cameras would act as deterrents to police brutality and prevent such heinous police acts as we witnessed in the Chad Holly case in Houston, Texas.

                    Looking at this new trend of criminalizing public photography one cant help but wonder whether cameras are the new guns. Somehow we have been led to believe that cameras are more harmful to public safety than guns. This defies all logic because we all know guns are more dangerous. So what is the real story?

                  It all boils down to lobby groups. There are very powerful lobby groups that control both the Republican and Democratic Parties. The constitutional fights we have become accustomed to from politicians often have very little to do with actual reverence to the constitution. They are often fights to protect the lobby groups that fund them. The National Rifle Association(NRA) for example has deep roots in the GOP so any proposed legislation that is viewed to be anti-gun is met with fierce resistance from Republicans(2nd amendment). The same is true for talk radio that has traditionally favored Republicans. Any proposal to even the talk radio field is fiercely resisted by Republicans as an afront to free speech(1st amendment). Democrats do the same thing on the other side. The point is these so-called constitutional fights by politicians often have more to do with lobby interests than actual respect for the constitution.

                  Photography, which is also protected under the 1st amendment, has no known powerful lobby group. This is why laws like Improper Photography are easily passed eventhough they clearly infringe on the 1st amendment rights of photographers. Improper Photography does not meet the "narrowly tailored" requirement the Supreme Court uses when evaluating laws that are deemed to curtail free speech. Can you imagine what would happen if after the deadly Arizona shooting a law was proposed banning talk radio hosts from using violent gun imagery or talking about 2nd amendment remedies? The Republicans would run the sponsor of such a bill out of town for being anti free speech. Ironically the same Republicans(i.e Texas) are quick to take away the first amendment rights of photographers.

                    Is there a good reason why photography does not have a powerful lobby group? The answer is yes because you have to remember that the constitution as it relates to the 1st amendment protects those bad or "improper" areas of speech. It would for example protect those bad things you hear on talk radio or some controversial literature. When you apply that to photography you would mostly be referring to pornography. You will be hard pressed to find a politician publicly defending pornography eventhough most pornography is legal. It is for this reason that most states continue to enact laws attacking photography eventhough its protected under the 1st amendment.

                   This blog will be dedicated to bringing photography back to its rightful place at the 1st amendment table. This step-child treatment of public photography has to end. We will either uphold the 1st amendment or not. If its OK to sacrifice photographer's 1st amendment rights, then some talk radio limitations are in order. No more of this double standard!!!!