jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Arkansas is about to enact the most restrictive photography law I have ever heard of. Unless you get written consent, you are not allowed to take pictures of people in public, even if they are in the background. If someone's pictures appears online without their written consent, you could be in big trouble. The bill has already passed the state senate. I have seen quite a bit written about this.

http://fstoppers.com/news/arkansas-senate-passes-bill-make-street-photography-illegal-state-65704

BasqueLady Loc: Woodburn OR

This is law is awful what's going on in this country. From Indiana now Arkansas our governments are going crazy.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I imagine, like similar laws, it will be watered-down a bit, but some remnant will remain.

Scoutman Loc: Orlando, FL

It may be that the "crazies" are gaining more voice.

Having been stopped and questioned on more than one occasion when taking photographs in public places, I carry a laminated card on photographers rights in my backpack.

The First Amendment Center, has many examples on how this right can and is being challenged.

Here is its opening statement on the question along with a link to the complete text:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment

Freedom Of The Press, Press Research
Photography & the First Amendment
Bill Kenworthy
Legal Researcher
Sunday, January 1, 2012

"You would think that if you are in a public space and you can see something — an object, a person, an incident — then you could also photograph or film it. The reality is not that simple.
Just in the last few years, some interesting stories have cropped up in the news concerning photographers. A photographer in New York was arrested for videotaping a protest in a public plaza. A photographer for a newspaper in California was arrested while taking pictures of an accident scene on a public highway. Along with these examples are numerous other occasions in which photographers were temporarily detained and questioned for taking pictures of police activity or even buildings."

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

"Crazies" is right. Since when is taking a picture a violation of someone's rights? It reminds me of stories of primitive natives who didn't want their pictures taken because the camera would capture their spirit.

I'm afraid that this is the type of thing that can easily snowball. All of a sudden, photography is equated with child abuse, terrorism, and wife beating. Pretty soon, "Kodak Moments" will be a dirty word.

MW

The bill is 99% certain to be found unconstitutional. Until that happens it will be an aggravation. It's pretty dumb from the State of Ariasas' view as well since it's going to cost the state budget a bundle in legal fees and settlements before its course is run.

State legislatures everywhere pass bills they know will be found unconstitutional. It is a big waste of time and money for all parties except the legislators personally. He get to tell their constituents "I tried". That's easier than telling a constituent they have their head in a place it doesn't belong.

Superman6869 Loc: Iowa

Agreed.. But apparently the Hollywood type have some pull.. Or some serious senators daughter was in a pic . or maybe they don't want to a record of what's to come with cops and Marshall Law. Idk

steve03 Loc: long Lsland

Just another reason not to go on vacation in Arkansas! How come all these red states that are supposed to be for small Gov't. are passing all these laws to restrict the people

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That's probably it, but you have to wonder how many constituents don't want to take pictures outside of their own homes. And how about kids taking pictures with their cell phones all over the place?

Arkansas will have to create a special police force. They could give it a pleasant name, like Friendly Uniformed Constables Keeping You Offline Unfairly. Of course, they would abbreviate such a long name and use the first letter of each word. :D

steve03 Loc: long Lsland

This is the kind of law the don't enforce until the need a reason to arrest someone or give hime a hard time.

Mr.elwood1 Loc: Oregon City, Oregon

Hmmmm, I wonder which political party has the majority in the Arkansas senate.

(Jerry was correct in his statement, "crazies is right")

2Dragons Loc: The Back of Beyond

Where does this law leave the dash cams in police cars and private automobiles? What about all the security cameras that are mounted on light poles, ally ways, stores, etc? What about the TV media and newspaper photographers? What about back-up cameras in the newer automobiles? Does this mean that National Geographic can only shoot in countries outside of the U.S.? Yes, these questions sound about as silly as the law they want to pass! I guess I'll by-pass Arkansas when I take my next vacation.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It seems to be aimed at photos that can be seen by people in general, so that would eliminate dashcams. As for newspapers, they could save a fortune by eliminating their photo staff and all pictures from publication. :D

Pilot

If it passes, I will have spent my last dollar in the State of Arkansas.

MW

Republicans at present but that's kind of irrelevant. Both parties dive into this kind of BS when it suits them. Both parties attract busybodies that think anything they don't like personally should be illegal.