JetBlue Escorts NY Daily News Photog out of Terminal

Newspaper now threatening legal action

JetBlue is no fan of photography. They made that clear in 2008 when they had a woman handcuffed and escorted off the plane for refusing to delete a video she shot of an altercation between two passengers.

They made that clear again this month when they permanently banned an activist who videotaped himself stripping down to his Speedos before entering the TSA checkpoint.

And on Sunday, three JetBlue security guards confronted a New York Daily News photographer who was covering the flight delays at JFK Airport and escorted him out of the airport.

The photographer, Steven Sunshine, was photographing the giant board showing flight delays and cancellations due to the winter storm.

According to the Daily News:

They warned he could be in trouble for taking photos on "private property" at JFK's Terminal 5, even though he showed them identification and told them he was working on a news story.

"All of a sudden, there were three guys surrounding me," said Sunshine, 48. "They kept saying, 'You know you're on private property.'"

JetBlue spokeswoman Jen Cardillo said Sunshine should have asked for clearance at least three days in advance - even though the extent of the storm was not known until Saturday evening.

She insisted security officials only intervened to avoid "potential disruptions" to travelers.

Potential disrputions? Traveling was already disrupted because of the storm. Any further disruptions came from the security guards.

After he was escorted out of the terminal, Sunshine contacted Port Authority to file a complaint, but they refused to take a report and threatened to confiscate his NYPD-issued press pass if he pushed the matter.

Now the paper is threatening to take legal action against JetBlue and the Port Authority.

Mickey Osterriecher, attorney for the National Press Photographers Association, sent a letter of complaint to JetBlue.

“For you to have singled out Mr. Sunshine, who identified himself as a credentialed press photographer is an insult to our profession and members, who are also part of the flying public. While I appreciate your concerns for the safety of your patrons and employees I would hope that you can understand that photography/videography by itself is not a dangerous or pernicious activity.”

If you would like to file your own complaint, click here.

Comments

Does JetBlue own the actual terminal? I would think only airport management could kick someone off property. Of course, this wouldn't stop JetBlue from banning someone.

My question is why the Port Authority police officers take side with JetBlue? They should hook on business as usual to proceed on filing any complaint rather than threatening the photographer.

Has JetBlue bought the Port Authority?

Ohh wow, I see a law suit coming, and coming down hard.

Sad to say that I actually know people who work for jet blue.

I would advise them to find other employment.

"and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

The bigger story is the refusal of the port authority to take a complaint and threaten additional retaliation.

So the port authority determines who is and who isn't press.
Prior restraint?
The first amendment does not apply to regular people. "who identified himself as a credentialed press photographer"
so the National press photographers association believes that regular people have less rights then people with badges. Sounds like the same kind of people who were the propaganda arm for the WAR in Iraq.

I don't understand what JetBlue thinks they're going to accomplish with this sort of behavior. It's not going to stop photographers, and it's always going to be more negative than positive for its PR.

Daily News should run a hit piece on Jet Blue, exposing all the dirty laundry that they can. Keep it up until Jet Blue gets the point.
Also include the Port Authority.
This would be good idea as a standard approach to any one who does not respect photographers and there rights. Expose them and embarrass them.

That's probably what's in the works given past history.

Never piss off someone who buys ink by the tanker car and paper by the box car.

Yes, that is so, worked as a stringer for several small papers and mags, back in the day. Saw several cases of this, and it almost always worked. One case I heard of involved the police "getting heavy" with a photographer and would not back off. That is, until the editor informed the mayor of the special edition he was considering, you know, the one with the photos of he and the police chief with the hookers. Remarkable change in attitude.

I love the Private Property/Federal Property
catch-all prohibition.

According to their rules both are prohibited with respect
to 1st Amendment. Everywhere is off limits.

Except of course in the "free speech zones."

It's really scary to think about where this is going. While I would like to see a public outcry in favor of photographers and 1st amendment rights, I fear that most people are of the "tough on crime" variety, and support these insane security theater measures.

I feel that if I tell a member of the general public that I was harassed for taking pictures on a local light rail system and threatened with arrest if I did not delete my photos, I fear the reply will mostly likely be, "Oh, fuck you, just shut up and follow the rules." or "What a silly hobby go fuck yourself."

(Note: There is no rule prohibiting photography on the system I was harassed on, in fact it is not even addressed by the transit agency at all. They just said I was taking pictures of "sensitive" areas and told me to delete my footage. I was actually filming out of the window in the back of the train because I'm gay for trains.)

I don't know. I just don't have a lot of hope right now.

I sent a complaint to Jetblue. This is how they replied: "We understand your concern that a press reporter was removed for taking pictures in our John F.
Kennedy Airport (JFK) terminal last week. Please know that we were not denying his rights but were
protecting the privacy rights of our customers and crewmembers. No prior permission to take the
pictures was requested by the reporter involved. Our terminal at JFK is private property and while
we have no control over the public spaces of the airport, we will ask any non-ticket holding
individuals that impede our customers or crewmembers, or take photographs that compromise the
private information of our customers or crewmembers to leave. We hope that you will understand that
safety is a top JetBlue priority and we will do all we can to ensure that for our customers. "

Got the same boilerplate. No use asking how a photograph of an arrival/departures sign violates passenger privacy.

If Jetblue is so concerned about passenger's privacy, why do they allow TSA agents to grope them?!?

Hypocrites. Maybe Steven Slater did the right thing that day!

And of course JetBlue takes security so seriously, you can hand a ticket-agent a bomb and a $100 bill and he'll put it in the plane under the name of an unaccompanied minor for you.

@Frank - I'm stealing your quote, cuz I love it "Never piss off someone who buys ink by the tanker car and paper by the box car."

Post new comment

Pixiq on Facebook

Join the 10147 Pixiq fans on Facebook

Share

  • Share

Subscribe

Get weekly updates from Pixiq. Short, sweet, and always interesting.