St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

I have mixed emotions on this one.

One one hand I agree with the cameraman to his right of privacy, while on the other I agree with the office on the right to privacy.

What do you think? http://www.pixiq.com/article/albuquerque-police-officer-chases-away-news-videographer

Stef C Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA

"It is neither a police officer’s duty or right to decide what is appropriate news coverage of any story. So long as news personnel are in a public forum and not violating any ordinances they have a right to gather news unfettered by the personal feelings or opinions of law enforcement. Anything less may be considered a form of prior restraint or censorship. It is all well and good that the police set-up a media staging area but that does not mean it is the only place that media are allowed to be. They can go wherever the public is allowed, which in this case is outside of the "crime scene" perimeter. To expand that area for the sole purpose to preventing photographs or video recording is not a reasonable time, place and manner restriction and limits more First Amendment protected activity than is necessary to achieve a governmental purpose."

Right there it is.

Stef C Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA

"It is neither a police officer’s duty or right to decide what is appropriate news coverage of any story. So long as news personnel are in a public forum and not violating any ordinances they have a right to gather news unfettered by the personal feelings or opinions of law enforcement. Anything less may be considered a form of prior restraint or censorship. It is all well and good that the police set-up a media staging area but that does not mean it is the only place that media are allowed to be. They can go wherever the public is allowed, which in this case is outside of the "crime scene" perimeter. To expand that area for the sole purpose to preventing photographs or video recording is not a reasonable time, place and manner restriction and limits more First Amendment protected activity than is necessary to achieve a governmental purpose."

Right there it is.

MadMike Loc: SALT LAKE

Albuquerque Police have always done what they want. A few years ago they set up Speed Cameras and red light cameras around town, and were giving out tickets like crazy. The problem is, they didn't have State aproval to do it on designated Highways in town, plus they were not giving the State the percentage for these highways. New Mexico State forced them to remove the ones on the marked state roads, and required them to pay a percentage on all other tickets from other ones located around town.

normanhall Loc: Leslie Missouri

Well here is my 2 cents. while the photographer had a right to be where he was, and as long as he was not interfering with the police officers it should be ok. How ever i think that taking pictures of the guy under the car should not be taken. I think all of us should have a code of ethics when we do things like this. If he was going to use this in a news article he has the obligation not to cause any due stress or uneasiness in the victim or the victims family. the National Press Photographers Association has a code of ethics that should be followed. But it is up to the photographer what he ultimately does. We have been going over this in school lately and it is a very fine line here. There are some photogs. that have been sued for some of the images that they have posted because of being offensive to families.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Generally speaking, images of remains are seldom, if ever shown on local news TV unless they are covered. Interesting though that while documentaries portray body parts, along with some results of the harshest examples of human behavior towards other humans, there is objection to showing the results of a traffic accident on local, state, or maybe even national news? Video or stills can have great value in legal actions. It sounds like this cop with a camera was way off base, but everyone sees things differently. Hope the facts will support in favor of the videographer.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The law isn't arbitrary. There have been many unpleasant things shown on TV news, often with a warning beforehand. Think back to 9/11 and people falling to their deaths.

Scoutman Loc: Orlando, FL

Suggestion: "Photographer's Rights and the Police" would have been a more helpful heading for this topic. Try a "Mixed Emotions" on one of the major Internet search engines and see if you come anywhere close to your actual topic. Too bad moderators, or whoever the folks are that monitor this forum are not more pro-active in this regard.

Pw0812151 Loc: St. Petersburg

The sensibilities of the public change over the years. My father was a prizewinning photojournalist who started his career as a Signal Corps photographer in WWII and retired after being the Managing Editor of some of the bigger newspapers in the country. In the 50's, on a Father's Day, a photo of his ran on the front page. A horrific wreck on a local bridge, resulted in the death of a small boy. The father, who was driving, was drunk and speeding. The photo clearly shows the child, but there was a heartbreaking tenderness in the shot, nonetheless, and the story sought to shock all drivers into realizing the cost of drinking while driving and speeding. By today's standards the photo would be labeled editorializing, sensationalizing. However, other shots I studied of the time were often altered, touching up a photo to lower the skirt to the knees of an injured woman on the ground. We have become a shock culture. The Internet reported a story yesterday involving the suicide of a man who threw himself in front of a train, a group of teens shot pix with their cellphones posting the body and decapitated head. The man's son learned of his father's death via a news blog with the gory photos. Were those teens protected by the First Amendment? Is it alright to run a gory photograph on the news if the purpose is to educate? There is no easy answer to this question and common sense would seem to dictate, however, common sense seems to be in short supply.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Photographers rights may not always be recognized in the same manner in particular circumstances. Same with the law. While slightly off topic the most recent and famous 5-4 split decision of our supreme court is pretty clear to me that not only are laws debated and interpreted, but arbitrary until tested at the highest level. I think it is hard to form a blanket opinion without knowing the facts of the individual event. Then again, maybe it is because I see things occasionally in shades of gray? Now all I have to do is transfer that trait to my photography for better images. Lol Who knows, perhaps seeing things so clearly in B&W makes life more tolerable. In any case until the law prohibits it, it is our choice to make.

beverett Loc: los angeles

Cops were totally off base.