New Jersey Lawmakers Once Again Trying To Ban Photography In Knee-Jerk Panic
When it comes to hysteria against photographers, no state appears to be worse than New Jersey.
Earlier this year, New Jersey legislators were attempting to make it illegal to photograph children in public, which stemmed from an incident where a 63-year-old man was photographing children at a pool because he found them sexy.
The law, which would have sentenced people to at least three years in prison and would have turned many photographers into criminals, doesn’t appear to have passed because I haven’t heard anything about it since and a quick Google search produced no updates.
Also earlier this year, a New Jersey school district was trying to introduce a policy that would ask people attending school functions, like games or plays, not to post photos of the students on Facebook and other social media sites - not realizing how many parents like to photograph their children in these events.
Now legislators are attempting to pass a law that would make it illegal for people to video record an assault – which in most cases, is the most solid piece of evidence against the actual assault.
The bill is being sponsored by two republican Assembly members in the wake of an incident where a pair of teenage thugs beat up a homeless man and stole his bicycle before uploading a video of their crime online.
According to the Asbury Park Press:
The beating caught the attention of New Jersey legislators. Assembly members David P. Rible and Mary Pat Angelini, both R-Monmouth, and Jon Bramnick, R-Union, announced they will sponsor legislation to increase penalties and mandate jail time for videotaping and distributing the recording of an assault.
“It is absolutely appalling that two young men found it amusing to stalk and attack a homeless man,” said Angelini in a prepared release. “The fact that the young men posted the attack on the Internet as if it was entertainment is frightening and we must send a clear message that this behavior will not be tolerated in our state.”
Under their proposed legislation, videotaping and distributing the recording of an assault will result in an automatic second-degree aggravated assault charge. A person convicted of second-degree aggravated assault is subject to five to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $150,000.
“A perpetrator videotaping a crime and using the video to relive the event is a horrendous act and deserves a more severe penalty,” said Bramnick.
These legislators are missing the obvious point that it was the video that led police to the arrest of the punks who beat 50-year-old David Ivins.
If legislators believe the punks would not have done the same without a camera, they should take a look at the case from South Florida a few years ago where a group of teens beat a man to death with baseball bats just for the hell of it.
The only reason those teens were arrested was because a surveillance camera caught them in the act, which allowed authorities to release the videos so the public could identify them.
It didn’t take very long because the community was outraged as they are in the New Jersey incident.
But we can’t let this outrage overcome common sense.
As long as we’re going to have psychopathic teens randomly attacking homeless people, we want as many cameras around as we can get.
Even if they belong to the thugs themselves.
Please send stories, tips and videos to carlosmiller@magiccitymedia.com
Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3











Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?
































Comments
Law makers acting stupid. No, that never happens.. Stupid laws that COMPLETELY miss the point, no...
Sarcasm: Off
So basically, they're saying, if you commit a crime, don't you dare record it, cause then the public will cry out and force our hand to do something vs if you don't record it, we have no proof and thus dont have to waste our time. These lawmakers are acting as terrorists.
RE: Republican Assembly members
“I never meant to say that Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”
– John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP Sir John Pakington, March 1866
So what if some guy walking by sees an assault and records it on his iphone? Is it illegal if he puts it on youtube, even if he gives a copy to the police? What if the people committing the assault are the police? Will it be illegal to video them beating someone?
What's interesting to me is that it would have made actual sense to try and outlaw posting videos of assault if you were one of those making the assault. The lack of that nuance makes me suspect that the lawmakers live in a very narrow world where the context of everything they do is instantly understood and is not expected to have any other value other than the one in their understanding. Yes' NJ lawmakers, there are instances in which a person videoing an assault is not involved in the assault itself.
I disagree completely. If anything I want to *encourage* people to video tape their crimes and post them in public. The crimes are going to be committed anyway, why not make it easy to identify the perps?! We've all heard of how unreliable eye-witness testimony is, why not have an objective record? I think that's the point Carlos is making.
So New Jersey lawmakers should pass a law making it a crime to be a New Jersey lawmaker.
Problem solved.
I believe mandatory drug screening and public posting of results on the part of elected officials is an idea whose time has come. Especially in New Jersey.
The entire legislative body of that state is smoking crack.
Might be very wrong but, I think they are proposing anyone who is involved in the crime and also video tapes it they get a extra charge. Looked, can't find the actual bill but from my reading of various stories that is my take.
Post new comment