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
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
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
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
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?Journalism Organizations Slam Milwaukee Police For Arresting Photojournalist
The National Press Photographers Association and the Wisconsin News Photographers Association both fired off strongly worded letters addressing Wednesday’s arrest of a photojournalist covering an Occupy Milwaukee protest.
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel photographer Kristyna Wentz-Graff was arrested along with two protesters for standing in the street, which is usually just a traffic citation.
Milwaukee police claimed they gave several warnings but the video (linked below) proves otherwise.
Police later claimed they did not know she was a photojournalist, which shows these officers are not necessarily Sherlock Holmes material.
The NPPA and WNPA both made reference to September’s arrest of another photojournalist, Clinton J. Fillinger, at the hands of Milwaukee police.
The NPPA sent its letter to the Milwaukee Police and Fire Commission, the agency that oversees both the police and fire departments.
I write to you now in the hope that more reasonable minds will prevail, establishing proper press police polices and training for members of the Milwaukee Police Department in order to avoid similar situations. Although I received a reply from the chief (attached) assuring me that they had “launched an administrative review” of the case the charges against Mr. Fillinger have not been withdrawn and we have no knowledge of any disciplinary actions taken against the officers involved or corrective measures taken by the department.
What is equally disturbing are the public statements by the chief after Mr. Fillinger’s arrest (see second letter) and the statement by the Milwaukee Police Spokeswoman that the police did not know Ms. Wentz-Graff was a journalist at the time of her arrest. In the first case, the chief was wrong as the tape showed Mr. Fillinger was complying with the officer’s request. In the second case, it is highly implausible that the police did not know Ms. Wentz-Graff was a member of the working press. It is apparent from the officers’ actions as seen on the various tapes of the incident that Ms. Wentz-Graff was shooting pictures with two (2) professional cameras and lenses while visibly displaying her identification on a clip on her jacket zipper.
The WNPA directed its letter to Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn:
Schwartz has also asserted that Wentz-Graff never identified herself as a photojournalist, and that MPD did not know Wentz-Graff was a journalist until she arrived at the police station. This is implausible and unreasonable at best. Wentz-Graff was using professional photography equipment and wearing press identification on a lanyard hanging around her neck. Furthermore, her profession could have been easily ascertained by questioning her before taking the drastic steps that were taken. Instead, she was quickly pushed against a police vehicle and handcuffed without discretion. Her equipment was left to crash to the ground.
We respectfully ask that any and all charges against Ms. Wentz-Graff be dropped immediately. MPD has asserted the following on its official, public Facebook page: “Some are commenting that [Wentz-Graff’s] First Amendment rights were somehow infringed. There was no infringing on freedom of the press, as officers did not know she was a journalist.”
The MPD is out of line for disseminating fallacious legal interpretations to the general public on social networking sites. This remark only emphasizes the MPD’s vast misunderstanding of the First Amendment. All citizens – journalists and non-journalists – enjoy all of their First Amendment rights (to speech, press, assembly, petition and religion). One need not be a journalist to “qualify.” These rights are not given to American citizens “a la carte.” Ignorance on the part of MPD is also no defense.
WISN, the news station that recorded the arrest, posted the video on its site as well as on Youtube but they disabled embedding and comments.
On an unrelated, somewhat related, note, I finally got to meet Mickey Osterreicher in person last month after talking to him numerous times on the phone when we both sat on a panel discussing photography rights during the Media Law in the Digital Age conference in Kennesaw State University in Georgia.
We discussed everything from Fillinger's arrest to Emily Good's arrest to the TSA's attempt to paint photographers as terrorists.
The night before, we had a good discussion in the hotel bar about the ongoing crackdown against photographers.
I know you guys probably get sick of hearing me say this, but Osterreicher is a great person to have in your corner if you're a photographer or simply a believer in the First Amendment.
It all went very well, but unfortunately, we don't have any video of the discussion. But we do have this photo.
Comments
Well, in the cop's defense there was no way to tell she was with the media.
Anyone could have multiple cameras with expensive lenses and press badges hanging from their necks.
After all. The police have a right to be safe.
}sarcasm off{
The right (and authority) of a police officer to be safe stems from the same right to self-defense that any citizen enjoys. Police officers are explicitly exempted from duty to retreat statutes, but the basis for their ability to use force in their own defense goes all the way to such fundamentals as the right to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
I can just see the headline now, "Officers disarmed at gun point for citizen safety, police unions call it an outrage against the officer's second amendment rights!"
I'm going to take this in a different direction: The Police Dept does not think that the above camera is a "Professional" camera. This means that I should be able to take camera just like it to concerts and other events and not be hassled for having a "Professional" camera...
Is this the same corrupt Milwaukee police department that let's their officers get away with DUIs, domestic violence, and other violations of the law while the rest of the world goes to jail for the same crimes?
Here's a great investigative report regarding Milwaukee Police corruption.
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/131554703.html
"...putting herself and cops that have to go fetch her in clear danger."
DING DING DING!
We have a winner!
"Officer Safety!!!!!!!!!!"
That didn't take long.
(rolls eyes and does the jerking-off motion)
Careful.
Do you really want to reveal exactly how much of a twisted sister you are?
We already have your insane posts about how they were all in extreme danger... of being in the street.
OH NO! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!
Wait, I have to go yell at the neighbor kids now. It's for their own safety.
OH MY GOD CHILDRENS! GET OUT OS THe STREet! THE INTZERWEBS SAYS SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With a lens that size, you can see how the cops would fear for their lives.
It's true.
Every year hundreds of thousands of adults lose their lives.
From taking pictures from the street.
bgwillia
I suggest you sign up for sarcasm 101 at the local CC because you miss it on this one.
Well, we both know that the statistic doesn't exist because he was being sarcastic to point out the lunacy/idiocy of cops arresting people and photographers for standing in a public street even though nobody is being harmed by their actions.
In this case, the cops weren't protecting anybody for their own safety because the mere act of walking on a public street is not inherently unsafe.
Despite asinine city ordinances that really aren't intended to keep anybody safe, but rather generate revenue and keep public officials working, thousands of adults make the reasonable decision to cross public streets every day when the law technically tells them they can't.
I "jay walk" all day long, every day in Los Angeles, and have been doing it for a decade and I'm still alive and haven't caused harm to anyone.
Should I be arrested for it?
NO!!!
Should the jay walking law even exist?
NO!!!
Protesting isn't a parade. It's protesting. 1st Amendment trumps local ordinance.
"...putting herself and cops that have to go fetch her in clear danger..."
Because as we're all well aware, local streets are death zones where 95% of the people even trying to cross are killed every day.
"To ignore the misdemeanor being commited in their presence in this instance is a dereliction of duty."
But when NYPD officers fix tickets, that's ok because they've always gotten away with it before:
"Patrick J. Lynch, the union president, said in a news conference that the officers had been arrested on something “accepted at all ranks for decades.”"
Officers Jeer at Arraignment of 16 Colleagues in Ticket-Fixing Investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/nyregion/officers-unleash-anger-at-ti...
Bgwillia, what a logical, well thought out post. Unlike those that just post nonsense because either they just hate cops for being cops no matter what or they don't have the brain power to respond intelligently.
Cox v. New Hampshire requires restrictions to be narrowly tailored.
The examples given in Cox v. Louisiana, specifically blowing a red light which could put lives in danger, or blocking off Times Square at rush hour, can hardly be equated with somebody standing in a already blocked off street.
Also, ignoring probable cause for a misdemeanor arrest is not dereliction of duty. It's a matter of police discretion.
Comprehension, dumbass.
You're outrunning your vocabulary again. Stick to the copypasta.
But the constitution still trumps local ordinance, especially if the city can't show there was any real danger or such; the local restriction becomes overbroad.
See http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10724177128590739675&hl=en&a...
Metropolitan Council, Inc. v. Safir, 99 F. Supp. 2d 438 - Dist. Court, SD New York 2000
That just means it's never had to have/has been appealed that high.
Herp derp, no duh. Limited jurisdiction just means it hasn't been set in another yet, and can be used as an advisement.
The point being that there's a recognized difference between just sleeping on the sidewalk and sleeping on the sidewalk as a form of speech.
Just like there's a difference between just standing around in the middle of the road and being in the road to photograph exercising speech rights.
Christ, but you're thick.
I don't have to. Anything that is not expressly against the law is permissible. That's how free societies work, there aren't laws that say we can do things.
Also, false choice. Nobody's arguing for any road, any time, as long as they want.
When "nuh-uh!" and "yuh-huh!" are the extent of your reply, That's a good indicator that you've been spending too much time with little kids.
Actually, Milwaukee area drivers are, in my opinion, amongst the worst in the nation, and I grew up here. I feel safer crossing the street in NYC than I do in my home town.
So maybe the police really were trying to protect her? ;)
Officer safety trumps EVERYTHING in this country nowadays, including the constitution, the lives of innocent people, the lives of unarmed people, and the family dog's life.
^
Here is Philanderin' Flynn, Milwaukee's top cop and adulterer, making excuses.
You guessed it. It's a "safety issue" don't-cha know!
http://www.wisn.com/video/29678588/detail.html
As a high school graduate, I shouldn't be the one to point out that this sentence:
"... I finally got to meet Mickey Osterreicher in person last month after talking to him numerous times on the phone when we both sat on a panel discussing photography rights during the Media Law in the Digital Age conference ..."
... is grammatical crap. Try this:
"... after talking to Mickey Osterreicher numerous times on the phone, I finally got to meet him when we both sat on a panel discussing photography rights during the Media Law in the Digital Age conference ..."
You're welcome.
@Phil
Ah, the grammar police with their high school educations are just like the real police with their GEDs, living by their own set of rules and expecting the rest of us to go along with whatever they say or do.
Here's one you should correct, from your own correction, Phil.
"...I finally got to meet..."
How about, I was finally able to meet him...
You're welcome, smart ass.
In the linked video, the protesters at one point scream, "LET HIM GO! LET HIM GO!" at the cops arresting one of their number.
Has this EVER worked? Have taunted police ever stepped back and thought, "You know? They're right. I should totally take the cuffs off this guy and let him go back into the crowd so he can yell at me some more."
Yes, I've witnessed it myself.
I have photography equipment that looks much like that in the video, and I'm not a professional. The effort by the NPAA and the WNPA to distinguish professionals from non-professionals by the equipment they use basically implies that non-professionals have fewer rights than professionals to shoot photos of the same events. This is misleading at best and patently false at worst. So-called "professional" equipment is in the hands of many, many non-pros, and we have the same rights to use it without interference as the pros do.
uh, I think it was the combination of her gear.
Her press pass.
And the fact that she is a professional journalist.... Who was on the job.
But let it all out.
: )
"All citizens – journalists and non-journalists – enjoy all of their First Amendment rights (to speech, press, assembly, petition and religion). One need not be a journalist to “qualify.” "
It's important that the WNPA made this statement because like Phred said, having press credentials does not make this woman a super-citizen with special rights that exceed the non-credential photojournalist/journalist or participant at the event.
Under the Constitution, anybody is press WITH THE SAME RIGHTS.
However, this distinction between credentialed and non-credentialed seems to be supported by the mainstream media and credentialed press because they know their livelihoods are being threatened by everybody with a camera or notepad. And many of these people are much better than the paid journalists.
Aside from that, it's absolute BS that the cops arrested this woman and OTHERS for standing in the street. They're adults—they can make their own decisions without fear of being arrested for committing the victimless crime of standing in a public road. There are just too many laws in this country that are meant to control, steal your money, and keep public workers employed even though they're not necessary.
But again, being a press-carrying journalist doesn't exempt this woman from idiotic local laws that everybody else must follow. If I'm getting arrested for standing in the street, then so is she.
I just want to send out a internet-slap sometimes. Ugh.
Here's an update to the story with another photo that clearly shows the ID. They really didn't know who she was? What cop misses that many obvious clues. A 5 year old could have told you she was with the press. That cop needs to be disciplined for missing the obvious. The interesting part about this article is that Milwaukee mayor Tom Barret supports the press on this issue and Flynn is now back peddling and saying he wants to review, with the media no less, policies on how photographers are handled. Can you feel the heat Flynn?
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/flynn-seeks-meeting-with-media-af...
For what it's worth, this kind of crap is part of why many people, including myself, have long ago moved out of the city of Milwaukee.
As far as being "in danger", was she really? Was there heavy traffic? Does anyone really believe that she would jump out in front of a car just to get "the shot"? Moreover, do the Milwaukee police arrest everyone who walks in the street for "their own protection"? Not that I have ever seen.
There was also a court ruling declaring corporations people, and another ruling declaring that police officers due not have a duty to act if someone is being harmed. I guess those decisions were right, too.
You know what would be real safe though, and protect all kinds of people from being harmed...enforcing a regulation that required all Americans to wear helmets wherever they went, since all kinds of people are injured and die from head injuries every day. Let's ban alcohol which causes all kinds of deaths each year. I could continue...the list of options is endless.
The nanny state needs to go and creating dumb laws under the guise of safety is a bunch of bullshit and in many cases reactionary.
The Patriot Act and the TSA falls under that category.
The government working under the guise of safety for mankind is a facade.
For instance, the helmet law that helped protect you from further injury, arguably has nothing to do with someone's safety, but is about states receiving federal dollars for their roads. If states don't enforce seat belt laws or helmet laws they don't receive federal dollars. It's that simple and it really is all about money and generating more money.
If it was really about safety, all drivers (including people driver cars and trucks) would be required to wear helmets. That would save a lot of lives and people from further head injuries. However, the government knows that would take things a bit too far and they would have a "revolt", so to speak, on their hands.
Corporations aren't people...they don't have hearts.
I wasn't concerned about the second part of the South, which I'll get back to, but stressing the fact that the bias, politically motivated, and agenda driven US Supreme Court, as well as other courts make horrible rulings based on personal views rather than actual law or the benefit for all.
For example, and here is where I come back to the second part of the South decision that you brought up.
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. (South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856)); you left out that second part."
Of course the Court is going to rule law enforcement has a duty to enforce laws but not keep people safe because there is objective with that decision, and that is to keep people working and the system creating revenue for the people who so desperately rely on that system for their livelihood and families. Plus, they don't want to put their own pawns in harms when it really isn't necessary. Officer safety trumps everything, remember?
On the other hand, there is no real motive for the government or law enforcement to keep people safe since there's not much for them to gain in regards to revenue. Just look all NOPD cowards who abandoned New Orleans when they were needed most.
As a certified EMT, I find it strange that I have a duty to act and I am legally required to do so when I encounter someone needing help, but law enforcement officers are not legally required to do the same.
Which is my point, and that is the courts make horrible decisions from time to time because of personal objectives, political ties, and a bias that is rooted in keeping the status quo of their "justice" system professions.
Finally, to support my argument that the government doesn't give a shit about your safety is the fact that marijuana is outlawed, which keeps tons of cops employed and the courts running.
On the other hand, the same government which is intertwined with big corporations allows people to consume as much alcohol and tobacco as they want—and that's despite both those products killing more people in this country than anything else.
HEY bgwilla!!!
Thank the Milwaukee Police, nay HEROS!
She is safe!!!!
But more importantly, the STREETS of Milwaukee are once again S-A-F-E.
Breath easy everyone. Breath easy.
You can always tell who thinks they are losing the argument. They start calling others names and making insulting comments towards them. So childish.
I think, this was unjust! Every media personnel must have the freedom of speech unless they're using it against the law. However, they still must be treated well. ANyway, if you need legal assistance related to car accidents, ask for help from Miami car accident attorney.
Post new comment