My run in with security.....

[IRONROOSTER]

In fact I find it outrageous that they feel they can detain you without cause for an investigation. 

As has been suggested already - they're responding to a "suspicious person" - that's cause.  And as has been pointed out, "detain" can simply mean delay.  I recall no mention of "we're taking you downtown."  I'll agree that everyone handled the situation appropriately.  It's sad that incidents like this have to happen, but suspicion is high these days.

I was 'detained' not long ago by a state trooper, who stopped me for no other reason than because I appeared to be travelling from a certain locale and had a red light on my vehicle (signifying that I was a fire chief).  He was responding there on a report of ATVs in the road and he wanted to know if I'd seen them...  I hadn't.  We both went on our separate ways.

Sorry, but I fail to see how engaging in common lawful activity qualifies as "suspicious".  You could just as easily argue that walking by a train station or sitting on a park bench is suspicious. 

OK, try this one on for size...it is 9:00 p.m. on a weeknight and some *** is standing outside of your house on the public sidewalk looking up at the second story window that happens to be where your fifteen year old daughter has her bedroom...the blinds are drawn and although this guys is not breaking the law you have two choices (1) you can let him go around looking at houses like yours from the public sidewalk or (2) you can call his activity "suspicious" and call the local police.  What do you think most people would do (no, using your shotgun is not a good answer here)?

My statement was about common lawful behavior - is it common for people to stand outside your house at 9 p.m. staring at your daughter's window?  I see no relationship here to taking photographs. 

[Murphy Siding]

I don't know how many of you are aware of it, but the Patriot Act of 2005, PL 109-177, or HR 3199 ENR, prohibits gathering information (which would include photography or videorecording) about railroads or mass transit systems with the intent to aid and abet destruction or acts of terrorism. See  Title I, Section 110, Subsection a(8).

     Which would seem to say, that it doesn't prohibit gathering information (which would include photography or videorecording) about railroads or mass transit systems without  the intent to aid and abet destruction or acts of terrorism.

     It would sure seem like the above action would have been a no-no, even without the Patriot act.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I don't know how many of you are aware of it, but the Patriot Act of 2005, PL 109-177, or HR 3199 ENR, prohibits gathering information (which would include photography or videorecording) about railroads or mass transit systems with the intent to aid and abet destruction or acts of terrorism. See  Title I, Section 110, Subsection a(8).

[Midnight Railroader]

Wikipedia is a user-generated site which can generally be assumed to be somehwat accurate, however, it has no formal oversight.

That's not the same as a news website which does not happen to have a print companion.

The fact that you see these as the same says a lot about your point of view.

But, hey, you know when you've lost. And, in this case you have. So it makes sense for you to retire from the debate.

Here's something you apparently don't know: in most jurisdictions, news photographers cannot cross police or fire lines. Press or not, they have to stay behind the tape. New York City and California law enforcement do issue press passes that permit crossing the lines, but the overwhelming majority of agencies do not allow it.

And your guys must get permission to shoot in a theatre, which is private property. Do it without permission, and they'll be thrown out and be subject to prosecution. No special right for a news photog to take pictures in a theatre exists.

They also need permission to shoot at the Super Bowl. If they're denied permission--and every year, the NFL turns down hundreds of such requests--they don't get to barge in and yell, "I'm a news photgrapher, let me take pictures!"

By the way, I know exactly what your job requires. I have 25 years' experience as a newsman. I've dealt with cops trying to create their versions of the law for over two decades, so I have made an effort to learn the law myself and know it well.

[Poppa_Zit]

Poppa, I am surprised a journalist of your stated credentials would quote Wikipedia as a source in a discussion on legal rights and freedoms.

The issue here is accuracy. What is not accurate in the above description?

You should know better.

Not for you to judge. By the way, still waiting for you to state your credentials, if you have any. 

You also ought to know that your staff has exactly the same rights as any other person in this country when it comes to taking pictures. Constitutional protections are not required; anyone can take a photograph of any person, place, or thing in plain sight (with VERY few exceptions, perhaps US military installations being one), as long as the photographer is not trespassing...and you know it. Or you ought to, if your job is to publish a newspaper.

Oops! We weren't discussing rights, so don't try to change the subject. In the event you forgot, we were talking about who qualifies as media. You keep sidetracking in an effort to confuse people and avoid responding to legitimate questions.

You also don't have a clue as to what my job requires. The average photog cannot claim he has the right to take photos on the sideline at the Super Bowl -- he'd be thrown out. He cannot cross police lines at fires. You can't shoot video in a theatre. That's the difference between press and amateurs -- same rights, but much different privileges. 

I am not surprised, however, to find that, as a print publisher, you don't believe online sources are legitmate journalism. That, at least, is predictable.

Voila! Thanks for making my point for me. This statement totally contradicts your chiding me in the first paragraph for using online Wikipedia as source.

As far as the topic, Congress has yet to apply Publishing Law to the Internet. The legitimate "press" web sites are those who have connections to paper-and-ink publications. Period.

And with this I end our exchange because I don't debate trolls. You can't even write 100 words without a contradiction in your reasoning.

[Ishmael]

A question, if I may.

If another person, not affiliated with any government, say a security guard, came up to me while railfanning and takes my camera and erases the memory card or exposes the film, hasn't he VIOLATED my right to Life, Liberty, and the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS? 

The way I see it, another person can violate my constitutional rights.  If I'm wrong, please explain it so I can understand.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is not from the Constitution, it's from the Declaration of Independence.

As a point of interest, Jefferson originally wrote Life, Liberty and Property, but since he was a slaveowner it was thought that property would be misconstrued and so it was changed.

[Anonymous]

You know, it's kinda strange that you're arguing about arguing on these forums!

[rrnut282]

A question, if I may.

If another person, not affiliated with any government, say a security guard, came up to me while railfanning and takes my camera and erases the memory card or exposes the film, hasn't he VIOLATED my right to Life, Liberty, and the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS? 

The way I see it, another person can violate my constitutional rights.  If I'm wrong, please explain it so I can understand.

[Midnight Railroader]

Poppa, I am surprised a journalist of your stated credentials would quote Wikipedia as a source in a discussion on legal rights and freedoms.

You should know better.

You also ought to know that your staff has exactly the same rights as any other person in this country when it comes to taking pictures. Constitutional protections are not required; anyone can take a photograph of any person, place, or thing in plain sight (with VERY few exceptions, perhaps US military installations being one), as long as the photographer is not trespassing...and you know it. Or you ought to, if your job is to publish a newspaper.

I am not surprised, however, to find that, as a print publisher, you don't believe online sources are legitmate journalism. That, at least, is predictable.

[Poppa_Zit]

However, in my profession, I deal with this particular subject daily, and am well-aquainted with the law that covers it.

...

especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press

Courts of law have ruled that "press" does not necessarily refer to paid journalists.

Whoa. This is interesting. You are not wrong, but neither are you correct.

"Feedom of the Press" is interpreted thusly:

"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution ... the words "the press" traditionally describe newspapers and news magazines produced on printing presses. These forms of mass media are designed to reach large audiences. In modern usage, the press frequently includes broadcast media as well."

Source?

I will provide after you present your credentials to be giving the legal advice you offer. My perspective is that of a 20-year newspaper publisher.

But if this sort of thing went to trial, I seriously doubt any court would allow railfans snapping photos to turn it into a Constitutional issue by claiming they were members of a "news gathering organization".

It doesn't have to be a "Constitutional issue."

It's a matter of law. The law allows you to do this. The only time there's a question is when cops (or rent-a-cops) exceed their lawful authority while at the scene and say otherwise. They invariably lose when the issue gets to a certainly level of the police administration, because the law doesn't support their actions.

How can Freedom of Speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment, be anything BUT a Constitutional issue?

[Poppa_Zit]

another citizen (most security guards) CANNOT violate your Constitutional rights. Only the government or its agents can do that.

Do you even realize how absurd (and sad) that statement is?

I don't see your point. The statement is true.

[selector]

I think that "ironic" might have been better than "absurd", but neither do I want to draw any conclusions about someone else's utterings in case I misunderstand.  In any event, the irony is that it is the very thesis on which this entire thread is based; contributors have debated whether one's rights can be infringed....at all!  In the case of the statement challenged, it is averred that the government has the right to infringe on one's constitutional rights.  I am by no means an expert in law, but I find it hard to believe, unless the constitution contains a "not withstanding" clause or some other escape route that allows your government to use a teleological solution vice a deontological solution as it deems necessary.

Scary.

[Ishmael]

So far, throughout this thread, I have seen no mention of the time and money involved in defending your rights. Your only recourse for what you perceive as a violation is through the courts. This means you must hire an attorney and file a lawsuit in the Federal Courts. In the Eastern District of Missouri, the wait for a hearing is 2-3 years, and I am sure it is longer in the Chicago area.

Your attorney is being paid for his time and advice, which Lincoln said is his stock in trade, and his meter will be running throughout whether you win or lose. So I would say that Tim did the proper thing, although I'm sure this isn't the last word on this subject.

Incidently, what is absurd about Poppa Zit's statement?

[Midnight Railroader]

However, in my profession, I deal with this particular subject daily, and am well-aquainted with the law that covers it.

...

especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press

Courts of law have ruled that "press" does not necessarily refer to paid journalists.

Whoa. This is interesting. You are not wrong, but neither are you correct.

"Feedom of the Press" is interpreted thusly:

"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution ... the words "the press" traditionally describe newspapers and news magazines produced on printing presses. These forms of mass media are designed to reach large audiences. In modern usage, the press frequently includes broadcast media as well."

Source?

But if this sort of thing went to trial, I seriously doubt any court would allow railfans snapping photos to turn it into a Constitutional issue by claiming they were members of a "news gathering organization".

It doesn't have to be a "Constitutional issue."

It's a matter of law. The law allows you to do this. The only time there's a question is when cops (or rent-a-cops) exceed their lawful authority while at the scene and say otherwise. They invariably lose when the issue gets to a certainly level of the police administration, because the law doesn't support their actions.

[Anonymous]

another citizen (most security guards) CANNOT violate your Constitutional rights. Only the government or its agents can do that.

Do you even realize how absurd (and sad) that statement is?

 

[Poppa_Zit]

However, in my profession, I deal with this particular subject daily, and am well-aquainted with the law that covers it.

...

especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press

Courts of law have ruled that "press" does not necessarily refer to paid journalists.

Whoa. This is interesting. You are not wrong, but neither are you correct.

"Feedom of the Press" is interpreted thusly:

"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution ... the words "the press" traditionally describe newspapers and news magazines produced on printing presses. These forms of mass media are designed to reach large audiences. In modern usage, the press frequently includes broadcast media as well."

The above descriptions do not require a "journalist" to be financially compensated. But right now, until Congress officially extends Publishing Law to cover the Internet and vastly broadens the definitions, displaying photographs on a web site does not constitute "published reporting" -- because there is no active "public distribution". Web sites are static. Therefore, photographers who are making pictures for their own web site are not considered members of the press.

Railfans taking photos do not qualify as "the press".

If you are a full-time, credentialed photographer from, say, Trains magazine and on specific assignment from an editor, OK. Same if you can prove a freelance assignment to shoot exactly what you are shooting.

But if this sort of thing went to trial, I seriously doubt any court would allow railfans snapping photos to turn it into a Constitutional issue by claiming they were members of a "news gathering organization".

[CNW 6000]

I was coming back from Iron Mountain, MI this weekend and came across a railroad I wasn't familiar with: Escanaba & Lake Superior.  I asked one of the crew who was near a public road if anyone on the crews (2 were working) would mind if I took some photos from public places.  He actually got on the radio to ask both crews, neither of which objected.  They actually invited me on property (but not too far) to get a pic of them on their equipment. 

I asked if they had problems with other railfans relative to trespassing, etc and one engineer said that they usually called the cops if someone is near property for too long.  One conductor said the local PD told them to call no matter what.  He told me that some fans have 'the look' that means trouble to him.  As we talked a sheriff's deputy drove up and stopped.  He asked if the crews needed assistance with anything (probably me?) and they all said that everything was fine.  After a bit more BS we all parted ways. 

I did ask the deputy about railfans but he said the only time he checked on someone they were sitting on the tracks in a lawnchair, binocs in hand, 'waiting for the train' as the gent put it.  He said that he just asked him to move off the tracks which he apparently didn't realize he was on (alcohol?), checked his ID, and moved on but 'checked back on him' by driving nearby once or twice.

[inch53]

I've never been hassled while rain fanning are ask for ID even, but have had cops or security ask what I was doing. After telling them, I was just ask to stay out of the way and we all went on our merry way. We live and rail fan mostly in rural areas and smaller towns; 911 paranoia is still around, but not the way it is in bigger cities I guess.

I was in charge of security for uranium refinery, long before 911 [cold war], and even worked as a part cop. So I have some idea of what they have to consider in today's world.

I figure it like this as long as they don't start hassling me or get nasty, I won't them either, but that's just the way I am.

One thing I always do, if I'm around a yard, I always check with the yard office, and tell'em what I'm doing. Most everyone I've met as been ok with it, just stay out of the way and off the tracks.

[JSGreen]

  As far as far poppa zit goes here's all the periods I left out.............................. please keep your comments to yourself

Well, PZ can certainly speak for himself, but I was the one who made the periods comment.  And it wasnt just to be a wise a--. (although I am capable of that, also) 

It was a subtle (perhaps too much so) reminder that to have your opinion and comments taken seriously, they have to be communicated effectively.  Without making accusations, when I see run on sentences and fragments I see it as a sign of sloppy thinking and sloppy logic.  You may in fact have the most salient point that will define the argument, but if it is hidden in what appears to be gibberish, or misunderstood because of faulty puncuation,  it will often be lost in the noise. (remember, NO! DONT! STOP! is not the same as NO!  DONT STOP!)

Personally, I only skimmed your post and didnt spend the time it would have required to get to the point.  Perhaps others did the same.   Perhaps it was my loss to have done so, but I am willing to take that chance.  

And, if you dont like my comments (or anyone elses), one of the beautiful things about the format of this forum is you can tell who wrote the comment immediatly...and just skip right past it if that suits you.  

End soap box.  I will now release this thread to its originally scheduled topic... 

[Midnight Railroader]

Thankfully, no.

However, in my profession, I deal with this particular subject daily, and am well-aquainted with the law that covers it.

More to the point, every citizen should know the laws that affect him, and his rights as guaranteed by those laws, up to and including the US Constitiution.

[gabe]

Thank you Cordon for clarifing the issue I guess steinie and Midnight RR owe me an apology.  As far as far poppa zit goes here's all the periods I left out.............................. please keep your comments to yourself

No, no apology required, and here's why:

You said: by not cooperating or giving law enforcement officials a hassle can ruin it for everyone

Not supported by law. 

You said: freedom of the press applies to printed material and not photography

Not true. 

You said: especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press

Courts of law have ruled that "press" does not necessarily refer to paid journalists.

You said: here's an example I went on a tour of a Naval base we were told we can take our cameras but could not take pictures if we were caught taking pictures we would have to hand over the film

This one is true. The rules for US Government installations are more restrictive.

You said: the same thing applies with the Railroad it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains

Not true. The law allows taking photographs of anything within plain sight as long as the photographer is not on private property without permission. That makes it a citizen's right to do so.

You said: and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyone

Not true. A change in the law is a little tougher to accomplish than that, and a great number of advocacy groups would challenge such a change were it proposed.

 

Does your legal malpractice insurance carrier know you are giving out free legal advice on the internet?

[Anonymous]

After 9/11 many things in the US changed as a former Coastie I can tell you if you are even fishing underneath a bridge it is cause to be questioned and being asked to fish elsewhere,  possibly photographing potenial targets such as bridges refineries and powerplants is DEFINATELY grounds to be questioned and lately rumor has that trains themselves are possible terrorist targets as they carry many types of hazardous and flammible liquids that can easily destroy a city also make it grounds for questioning even though many of you think you have protection from the first amendment you've got to realize the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few so if you wish to continue photographing trains you need to realize that being questioned by a law enforcement officer is a small price to pay for your hobby and by not cooperating or giving law enforcement officials a hassle can ruin it for everyone and raise suspicion to you and your hobby, and remember freedom of the press applies to printed material and not photography especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press here's an example I went on a tour of a Naval base we were told we can take our cameras but could not take pictures if we were caught taking pictures we would have to hand over the film or if it was a digital camera erase the pictures in front of them if not we would have our camera confinscated and possibly be arrested the same thing applies with the Railroad it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyone

One word:  CONVOLUTED! 

 

[Midnight Railroader]

Thank you Cordon for clarifing the issue I guess steinie and Midnight RR owe me an apology.  As far as far poppa zit goes here's all the periods I left out.............................. please keep your comments to yourself

No, no apology required, and here's why:

You said: by not cooperating or giving law enforcement officials a hassle can ruin it for everyone

Not supported by law. 

You said: freedom of the press applies to printed material and not photography

Not true. 

You said: especially since many of you don't publish your photographs and are not members of the press

Courts of law have ruled that "press" does not necessarily refer to paid journalists.

You said: here's an example I went on a tour of a Naval base we were told we can take our cameras but could not take pictures if we were caught taking pictures we would have to hand over the film

This one is true. The rules for US Government installations are more restrictive.

You said: the same thing applies with the Railroad it is a privilage not a right to take pictures of trains

Not true. The law allows taking photographs of anything within plain sight as long as the photographer is not on private property without permission. That makes it a citizen's right to do so.

You said: and all it takes is one person not cooperating to have that privilage taken away from everyone

Not true. A change in the law is a little tougher to accomplish than that, and a great number of advocacy groups would challenge such a change were it proposed.

 

[vlmuke]

Thank you Cordon for clarifing the issue I guess steinie and Midnight RR owe me an apology.  As far as far poppa zit goes here's all the periods I left out.............................. please keep your comments to yourself

[magicman710]

Very well said John. I might have got myself a little missunderstood. I dont think that threads like the waving, ect shouldnt been locked. I think they should, but the "people get turned away" thing I think isnt as true as it seems. People who turn away these forums for that obviously have no humor, and needs to get some. I personaly think that humor in these forums helps us get along, make friends, and just have good time.

 

 

[canazar]

Kind of off topic on that subject, but Bergie said on my old Waving thread that he didnt like threads like that because it would turn people away from the forums. However, if you ever look at the "Forum Stastics" you will se a average of 20 people joining a day. With over 42,000 users. In the last 24 hours we have had 40 new threads and 560 new posts. I havent looked at it in the long term but I'm going to start. At 9 every night I will record the forum stastics over the next month. I will see if them "turning people away statements" are really true, because I dont think they are.

 

Smile,

Grayson

 

Grayson,

 I am not going to question your logic or tell you are wrong, I think you have a point.  But before you and do something like that, or question Bergie's logic, you need to step back and think about a few things.

His statement isnt far off.  While I see your point, look at it from his perspective. Your right, closeing one thread wont help but irk those that had a good argument going.  Well, I have been around alot of forums in my day (This is the only train related) and I have watched things spiral out of control.  Once the  nit-picking starts, its hard to stop.   There is a fine line between haveing a spirited debate, and getting a forum that is considered hostile.

I noticed you posted the numbers...  I am pretty sure, that is for ALL the forums on this site.  Trains.com, Gardern Railroader, Model Rail Roader, Classic Trains, etc.  So, you basis for the numbers is extremly flawed if you try to apply it the Trains Forum. Most folks tend to stick to their boards. 

If folks cant have a good debate, with out it going out of control on every silly minor point that gets beatin' like a dead stubbron mule, the good folsk will get tired of it and move on.  Only folks left will be the drama queens, and most new  people to the forum, will want nothing to do with it.

Now, the big issue in my mind, comes down to what is a "good debate" or a "whizzing contest in the wind".  Of course, that will vary among other folks who get mad that a thread got deleted, while others will be left saying thank goodness.   Cant please them all...   and its not our job, its Bergie's.   Since its house, his rules, and I am greatful for this place to hang out and learn, he makes the call either way and I am 100% content with that and after a few years on this board, I see no logic to rock the boat. 

[magicman710]

Can we all now please move on to something related to trains instead of amateur legal night ? Before Bergie has to close this thread too.

You made a very good post with alot of sence. I congradulate you on that. Now, in my polite way, I must ask you, what is not train related about this thread? It involves taking pictures of trains, and mentioning of trains. Why threads like this are locked I'm not quite sure.

 Let me take a stab at making a prediction about why threads like this sometimes end up getting locked.

1. The debate is not really about railroading as such - it is really about the tradeoff between security and freedom in the context of the "global war on terror".

 The GWOT is an extremely polarizing political subject. The tradeoff between security and freedom is an extremely polarizing political subject.

 2. There would seem to be no imminent extreme shortage of other forums to debate the GWOT - for the foreseeable future.

 I can assure you that there is very little chance you will not get as large a daily dose of this subject as you can stand (and then some) between now and november 2008, and probably also way beyond that date.

 3. These forums are run by a private company for the benefit of their current and potensial customers.

 This private company presumably would like to sell their product to both strong conservatives, to strong liberals and to people who by now are so thoroughly fed up with hearing the same tired old arguments over and over and over again no matter what they do and where they are at, that they soon will start puking when they see yet another repeat of the great GWOT debate approaching.

 They probably do not want any group of their customers so pissed off by political debates that they leave. In particular, they probably do not want to be left with just the ranters - of both the right and the left.

 4. Maybe we should at least try to keep this forum about railroading instead of about amateur interpretations from both sides about constitutional rights and priviledges, or about whether the present US administration has done things very right or very wrong in the context of GWOT ?

 My opinion, obviously. Yours might differ.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

 

Kind of off topic on that subject, but Bergie said on my old Waving thread that he didnt like threads like that because it would turn people away from the forums. However, if you ever look at the "Forum Stastics" you will se a average of 20 people joining a day. With over 42,000 users. In the last 24 hours we have had 40 new threads and 560 new posts. I havent looked at it in the long term but I'm going to start. At 9 every night I will record the forum stastics over the next month. I will see if them "turning people away statements" are really true, because I dont think they are.

 

Smile,

Grayson

[steinjr]

Can we all now please move on to something related to trains instead of amateur legal night ? Before Bergie has to close this thread too.

You made a very good post with alot of sence. I congradulate you on that. Now, in my polite way, I must ask you, what is not train related about this thread? It involves taking pictures of trains, and mentioning of trains. Why threads like this are locked I'm not quite sure.

 Let me take a stab at making a prediction about why threads like this sometimes end up getting locked.

1. The debate is not really about railroading as such - it is really about the tradeoff between security and freedom in the context of the "global war on terror".

 The GWOT is an extremely polarizing political subject. The tradeoff between security and freedom is an extremely polarizing political subject.

 2. There would seem to be no imminent extreme shortage of other forums to debate the GWOT - for the foreseeable future.

 I can assure you that there is very little chance you will not get as large a daily dose of this subject as you can stand (and then some) between now and november 2008, and probably also way beyond that date.

 3. These forums are run by a private company for the benefit of their current and potensial customers.

 This private company presumably would like to sell their product to both strong conservatives, to strong liberals and to people who by now are so thoroughly fed up with hearing the same tired old arguments over and over and over again no matter what they do and where they are at, that they soon will start puking when they see yet another repeat of the great GWOT debate approaching.

 They probably do not want any group of their customers so pissed off by political debates that they leave. In particular, they probably do not want to be left with just the ranters - of both the right and the left.

 4. Maybe we should at least try to keep this forum about railroading instead of about amateur interpretations from both sides about constitutional rights and priviledges, or about whether the present US administration has done things very right or very wrong in the context of GWOT ?

 My opinion, obviously. Yours might differ.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[cordon]

I hope this doesn't start off a whole new bunch of controversy, but I'd like to clarify that the federal government actually can, and does, prohibit photography from public property in certain cases.  I have seen on the fences surrounding a civilian company's plant a sign like this: "Defense Plant.  Photography Prohibited."  Then I think it lists something like "Title ****, U.S. Code ***."

You are standing on a public sidewalk looking at the buildings, and this sign is posted on the chain link fence facing you. 

I can understand why they might do this for a company that makes military equipment.  Depending on the exact wording of the law, I can also see how they could extend it to other installations, including oil refineries, bridges, tunnels, railroads, etc.

My whole point is that if the government can apply such additional restrictions, and if we railfans push their buttons enough, they might just do it.  Then it will be official, and we will be out of luck.

I suggest being nice and not pushing people's buttons. Then we can all come back and railfan another day.

 

BTW, here is another refinery incident. 

[solzrules]

No, no, no,no...

You're supposed to scream and rant - throw your photog's rights paper at them - call the ACLU - call Jesse Jackson - give the refinery the finger -  call the cop a pig - and then post it all on trains.com!!!

WOW!

It's almost like you have read a few of the prior threads on photographers' rights before.....

I must comment that this was handled very well.  I am 100% confident that if you keep your cool, remain calm, and be honest about what you are up to, you will have no reason to worry.  If you would have lost your cool, filled your pants in a fit of rage, and started lecturing everyone about your 'rights' as an American citizen things would have gone differently.  If the security cop does have a fit, play along and then make him look like a fool later.  Confrontation with law enforcement is never a good thing, even if you are right.  That's for the court system.  Of course, if you are breaking the law, then I think you should fully expect to have your rights violated. 

Anyhoo, it was nice to hear a story that went well.  It seem like there is a proliferation of stories about bad cops in this forum, for whatever reason.