Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   Thou shalt not take pictures of SpongeBob, according to top men   (buzzfeed.com ) divider line 68
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

4741 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2014 at 8:54 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-07-20 09:25:09 AM  
16 votes:

LeoffDaGrate: SauronWasFramed: old news is old.....we live in a police state.

the reporter is lucky he didn't get Rodney King'ed

You live in a police state only if you're paranoid and feel oppressed.  That says volumes about you.


Far be it from me to be caught in the SauronWasFramed Derp-A-Looza camp, but if this comment was accurate:

"You are suspicious, we live in a post 9/11 world,"

what kind of state do you think we live in?  No, the reporter was not arrested, not beaten, didn't have her camera taken away, but a single attack that occurred almost 13 years ago is now an excuse to prevent photographs taken from public sidewalks of public buildings, and there is no law to enforce that, just a "this is a post 9/11 world" that can apparently be used as an excuse for all eternity.  Because we don't immediately burst out laughing when that's the excuse, 13 years later.  So I have to assume it will be just as potent after 26 years, or 52.  Most of us still carry that little "Keep Murica Safe" hymn in our hearts, even if we have now changed out of our Dubya Stormtrooper uniforms and disavowed all past allegiance to The Saddam Is a Bad Man Party.

It may not actually be a police state (yet), but it's certainly a surveillance state, and in fact it's already moved beyond that.  They not only watch you, they come charging out the door the second they see a camera, even though they know the camera takes photos of nothing but blank, ugly building facades and doorways.

They think everyone, literally everyone, is a terrorist casing their building for the next big attack.  Because there was one attack, 13 years ago.

Fourteen years ago, if you had described a situation like this without naming the country, 99% of respondents would have said, "That's obviously Russa/Iran/North Korea."  If you had told them it would soon be the US, you would have gotten the "why do you hate America" refrain.  Now it's either Sauron's "so we live in a police state, who cares" or it's "you must be paranoid if you don't believe we live in Best America."

All of this is on top of the profound stupidity of the whole thing, because they only react when somebody openly walks up to the building, openly pulls out a camera, and openly takes a picture.  As if there are no zoom lenses in the world, as if there are no helicopters, as if there aren't countless ways of taking photos of those ugly, blank facades that nobody cares about.  They throw up barriers and checkpoints and security zones to keep the pony from getting out of the barn, the pony that disappeared over the horizon more than a decade ago.

Meanwhile those photos show only too plainly (as anyone who just walks by would know) that the buildings are entirely unsecured against a car bomb attack or even a guy wearing a suicide vest.  So the fat, bored cops waddling out of buildings to shout at people with cameras is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

And blind stupidity is another key factor in a police state.
2014-07-20 10:03:01 AM  
9 votes:
for any if you who say stopping photographers is ok, "it's a post 9/11 world" or are apathetic about it

fark YOU.

in my life time we have gone from the anti war, kent state standing up for our rights to some pussy "mommy the bad guy is out there" attitude. shame on you.
2014-07-20 09:10:36 AM  
6 votes:

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


So arguing that you were told that you could take pictures to a guy that told you you couldn't is AW'ing now?

/At this rate, even keeping your head down and doing your business quietly will be AW'ing in 10 years...
2014-07-20 10:07:40 AM  
5 votes:

Cataholic: I'm sure countless numbers of tourists take photos in front of these buildings every day.  Yet, we never seem to read anyone else complain about being harassed for doing so.  I wonder what this particular photographer did differently to attract their attention.


It was probably something really flagrant, so provocative, so disgustingly disrespectful of the holy memories of the Victims of 9/11, that they couldn't just ignore it.

For example, being on a bicycle and alone, instead of on foot, fat, sunburned, with a spouse and two kids and a "What to See in D.C." brochure sticking out of your pocket.  She probably doubled down on this crazy provocative act by pulling out a camera with a detachable lens, the surest sign of the al Qaeda operative casing Building 7G in Annex 3 of the Institute of Really Boring Statistics for imminent car bomber attack.

Because it's that kind of shamelessly provocative, disprespectful act that brings the harsh response she received, i.e., fat security guards waddling out to tell her, "You can take pictures of the building, but you can't take pictures of this doorway."

Sounds legit.
2014-07-20 09:32:18 AM  
4 votes:
People who use the phrase "post-9/11 world" should have a plane fly into them.
2014-07-20 10:27:00 AM  
3 votes:

Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos


"

The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement."

or

"A country where the police watch what you do and try to control your life. Where there's cameras in town centres and on public transport. Where you can be arrested because of something you said to a friend about the leaders of your country. Where police stop and search people for no reason. Where you can be detained without charge or trial. Where the state plants bugs with impunity. Where protesters have to get police permits, and where police regularly attack protesters. "

Want to try that again?
2014-07-20 09:43:49 AM  
3 votes:
People going on about a "post 9/11 world" are overlooking things like the Navy Yard shooting that were much more recent.
It's not terrorists that we have to guard against as much as it is a crazy loner with a grudge.
2014-07-20 09:22:45 AM  
3 votes:
I remember when they passed the Anti-Nervousness laws and the Suspicious Persons act.

The way to avoid feeling nervous about suspicious people is always to give up freedoms and embrace a police state because that's not scary at all.
2014-07-20 09:14:39 AM  
3 votes:

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


You know how I know you are one of the "sheeple"?

/Open-carry people are still douchebags.
//Just like those who Roll Coal
2014-07-20 10:22:57 PM  
2 votes:

Olo Manolo: OgreMagi: Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....

In other words, "don't do something perfectly legal because, uhhh,  reasons."

You are the reason we have idiots in power.

I'm sorry, yes, you are correct and I am willing to change my stance. Everybody! Go forth and photograph doors and barricades and give shiat to the undertrained, underpayed, over-compensating security guards! We are changing the world here!!

Since I'm the problem for thinking one should pick their battles, and save the outrage for where it really matters... Please, tell me how you have got out of your computer chair and actually helped anything... And no, posting #kony2012 #savethetatas and being a buzzfeed "journalist's" cheerleader doesn't count....


Our Rights are the battle I pick.  Public photography falls under our Rights which must be defended each and every time the people in power attempt to erode them.  If we stop defending our Rights, we will lose them little by little.
2014-07-20 06:13:50 PM  
2 votes:

img.fark.net



I'm really disgusted with all the posters in this thread defending the security guards illegal harassment and dismissing the photographer's exercising her rights as being a "d-bag."

The well established case law is that if you're in a publicly accessible area like standing on a public sidewalk you are free to take as many pictures as you like so long as you are not doing something asinine like blocking foot traffic. Anybody carrying a badge and a gun who tries to deny somebody this very basic right for the public to see pictures of what our taxes are paying for should face stiff fines, jail time and unemployment.

Don't like the photographer taking pictures of your shiatty building? then put a privacy fence around it.  Or better yet, just put on your big boy pants and get the fark over it.

I'm deeply saddened by what has become of this country.  We had a goddamn coward in the White House on 9/11, and his cowardice has infected the entire nation.

We desperately need more high quality still and videocameras that can instantly upload pictures and recordings to a secure server for those all-too-likely situations when a camera is illegally taken from a person under threat of government violence.
2014-07-20 02:36:28 PM  
2 votes:

Smackledorfer: quatchi: People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.

Can we not both think he is a dbag and think that the concern over pictures being taken is a little over the top?  This guy wasn't arrested, his photos weren't seized, nobody used any force on him besides "ok sir, time to keep moving" on him.

/meh.


He's just showing people that this sort of idiocy is happening in the US, even to non-douchebags.

This week, the ACLU filed suit against the US "Suspicious Activity Reporting Program" on behalf of five people, two of whom were photographers.

The first is a renowned art photographer who has had showings at the Smithsonian. He ended up on  the Federal watchlist for taking photos of public art from a public sidewalk.

The second is a photographer and design student who was photographing an industrial site from a public area.

It's time to become douchebags, to get this into the court system, and stop cops and Feds from harassing people for legal activities that pose no threat to anyone.
2014-07-20 02:19:53 PM  
2 votes:

Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos


It's chaos caused by very stupid administrators and fear-mongers.

I walk nearly every day, and always take my cameras with me -- two DSLRs -- just in case I see a neat bird or bug or something. I'm harassed by someone at least once a week, not for photographing them or their property directly, but just for being seen with a SCAAAAARY camera. People who don't directly approach me gossip about me, as I'm seen so often.

The Farktography theme a couple of weeks ago was government buildings. I took some shots of our shiny new local PD, and was stopped and questioned by a cop for it after a woman inside was convinced I was a terrorist and needed some arrestin'. I explained to the cop that, if I wanted pictures, I could go to Google street view, or just walk by with my cell phone and he'd never even notice I was taking them. Fortunately, the cop had more sense than the people who called him.

Not one instance of terrorism in the US has been linked to cameras, yet Homeland Security told everyone to be deathly afraid of photographers. That's not chaos, it's stupidity. It's someone saying, "Look how safe I'm making you while doing absolutely nothing about any problems."
2014-07-20 12:59:32 PM  
2 votes:

Smackledorfer: T-Boy: The photog was trying to get approached, and he succeeded.  I'll bet if I set out to do it, I could end up running down the street with police running behind me.  When they catch me I will have nothing illegal in my possession and won't have done anything except run from police who had no basis to arrest me.  Then I could publish my account on the internet.  All it would really show is that I have the intellectual power to manipulate police into being suspicious of me. That isn't really a great accomplishment.

You have to understand. A lot of Americans are under the firm belief that the level of suspicion that should be required for police to interact with the public is roughly at the same level as that required for criminal conviction, and that any use of force by police with less is hitler reincarnated.



And you have to understand that the police had every right to inquire about what this person was doing.  They had NO RIGHT to run the person off or threaten him.  They were free to ask, and then to monitor the situation, but they had absolutely no right to enforce something that existed only in their minds.

When the police start making up the rules, as every single one of these ones did, that is the beginning of a Police State,.  When the Police decide what is allowable and what is not, regardless of the Law or even what their bosses are saying, that  is the beginning of a Police State.

And that is exactly what happened here.  Several times.
2014-07-20 12:15:00 PM  
2 votes:
Good job, schmucks. You got complacent with it. Let it not bother you. Of course they harassed a person doing a thing that is not just legal but constitutionally protected. Why would they not? It's the way things are and you have to deal with it. Speaking to what Curious said upthread: now you're the people who said the kids at Kent State "should've known better." You're my old Republcan aunt who said the Tiananmen Square protesters "shouldn't have been there." You're every bitter, stupid old fool who let it all slip away from you because you're comfortable now, and making things right means you might have to be uncomfortable at some point. This. Writer. Did not. Do. Anything. Wrong. And you assholes are sitting here blaming the victim because they should've known better than to try and do something they were permitted to do. Good job!

All of this is on you. All this stupidity and lazy defense of stupidity. You're defending the state for surrounding, threatening, and temporarily seizing the camera of a person taking photos of public property in a public space because hey! They might've been using their rights in a way that you and the state don't approve of. And if that's the threshold, guess what? You don't have any rights. You just think you're free because you're a particularly uncreative slave.
2014-07-20 10:28:05 AM  
2 votes:
Note: If you are an average tourist taking one or two pictures of the building from the sidewalk, no one will stop you, they won't even notice you.

If you are someone carrying professional photography equipment taking dozens of pictures of the building from multiple angles, including points of entry and exit and defensive barriers, you will make security nervous, and they will ask you to leave.
2014-07-20 09:51:59 AM  
2 votes:
We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos
2014-07-21 11:45:19 AM  
1 vote:

Lenny_da_Hog: I'm sorry, what time do public sidewalks close?


Looking at the pictures one has to have very vague ideas of what a public sidewalk is vs. a walkway built on the building property itself.  

And again, surely you aren't saying you cannot be legally removed from sidewalks for a variety of behavioral offenses, are you?

Lenny_da_Hog: Do you think that when a park closes


I think when a park closes you cannot legally enter the park, and loitering around outside of a closed park would probably result being visited by the security of said park asking you what you were doing and telling you to stop loitering.

Lenny_da_Hog: Trespassing is trespassing. It has nothing to do with cameras.


Sure it does.  You legally enter the lobby of a government building. You start taking pictures and get asked to leave. When you don't leave, you are trespassing.  You weren't trespassing when you first entered, but you are trespassing as of being told by the people in charge of the building that you aren't wanted there any more.


As for sidewalk vs. private area, depending on the city and the way the sidewalk is set up, you can indeed ask people to leave your sidewalk. Many sidewalks are only considered such for public easement, and while you cannot keep people from egress or ingress, you can prevent them from staying there.  How they are set up around the government buildings in question I have no idea.  But you might be surprised to find out that the "public" sidewalks in your area really aren't. Iirc it can come down to how the land is taxed.

Even then, there is nothing that stops a state or a city from controlling its own property in a similar fashion. Highways are public property and closed to pedestrian traffic, for example. Parks are closed at various times. Roads and various sections of sidewalk can be shut down for parades.

Now, fwiw, I could give a flying fark about people, even those looking straight up like Al Queda, taking pictures of public buildings, and I think it is silly of those guarding the public buildings to do much more than a quick field interview and a have a nice day.  But I also think it is stupid to create a problem that never existed (including lying to the security guards about what you are taking photos of just to raise their level of suspicion) just to create a story when a reporter has nothing better to write about.  But it is illegal for them to shoo you away? I do not believe so.

Between loitering, the various types of 'public' sidewalk right of way laws, which parts of large federal complexes even count as those sidewalks to begin with, etc I suspect the cops and guards in the story had the legal right to order the photographer away from the building.


Lenny_da_Hog: This writer was stopped not for trespassing, but for taking pictures from public sidewalks.


http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

Even the ACLU says
When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner's rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).

 He wasn't trespassing until they told him to stop taking pictures and leave, at which point his continued disobeying of those in charge of the property made it trespassing. But yes, he was initially stopped for not following the rules, however arbitrary and even inconsistent (we can change the rules of what we want in our house for any reason we feel like) those rules may be.
I for one don't want the rules of private property to be further eroded in order to protect a buzzfeed photographer from himself. I've never gotten it in my head that government owned buildings have to submit to my own personal rules either. I assume we are in agreement here, which leaves one thing for us to agree to disagree on: what the rules of sidewalks are./shrug
2014-07-21 11:33:47 AM  
1 vote:

Smackledorfer: stan unusual: Sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian traffic don't fall under the "it's private property and you're trespassing" analysis.

Well, go ahead and try to camp out on the sidewalk in front of a store all day.  See if you get physically and legally relocated.  You will be.


It has always been the case that the times decide who gets to hang around where and do what without being given the boot. Post-911 people who look shady and take pictures of security locations now get the same treatment skateboarding teenagers have always received. Is it right? Nah, probably not.  Is it legal? Probably, depending on how they go about it. Is it stupid? Yes. So is figuratively building yourself a cross to climb up on when you don't have a better idea for a story.


Drink!

Nobody is camping out on sidewalks. You're making shiat up. That would be blocking a public asset. As long as you're not impeding traffic (which you can do with or without a camera), taking photographs is *not* suspicious in anyway. There is no basis on which to make that claim other than "some other guy told me it was suspicious."

That's like saying wearing a red tie or a blue dress is suspicious. I find unshaven faces suspicious. People with tattoos are suspicious. There's no basis for any of those statements, but you're willing to stand up for them.
2014-07-21 11:29:37 AM  
1 vote:

LeoffDaGrate: SauronWasFramed: old news is old.....we live in a police state.

the reporter is lucky he didn't get Rodney King'ed

You live in a police state only if you're paranoid and feel oppressed.  That says volumes about you.


During the RNC, I was going to work (Chelsea Piers, NYC) during the RNC when it was in town... I had a button on my backpack that had a slash through a W... Steve Forbes was having a party on his yacht at the piers, unbeknownst to me... two NYPD atlas cops (the ones who wear more gear than many military troops outside the wire) threw me up against a truck, ripped the button off of my backpack, inquired as to where I was going, then released me by telling me that "the free speech zone is up above 42nd, not here." If you think the problem with that story is that I'm paranoid, that says volumes about you.
2014-07-21 04:49:45 AM  
1 vote:

Target Builder: I'm calling bullshiat on his version of events. At all these places the cops are well used to people taking photographs and you have to be acting pretty out of the ordinary for the police to even ask you what you're doing let alone ask you to leave.


Set up a commercial video camera on a tripod outside a government building in the midwest some time and get back to me on that.  I did that for a video class I took at the local community college and had not only security guards but local police squad cars called for back up confront me and try to roust me.  They backed off when I handed them my bar card for ID.
2014-07-21 02:43:23 AM  
1 vote:
I'm kinda sad that there is even a debate here. As Lenny_da_Hog, Dwight_Yeast, OgreMagi and others have pointed out, we are steadily having our God given rights diminished. If your rights can be attenuated, then they're just privileges with a highfalutin misnomer. Privileges can be taken away at a whim.

Be warned, the rest of you frogs in a pot who don't seem to care about the rising temperature are going to end up just as cooked as the ones you ridicule. But you'll terminate knowing the undying enmity of those who were forced to stand in your stead, while you were busy licking the boot on your necks, you slimy sycophants.
2014-07-21 12:25:45 AM  
1 vote:

Gyrfalcon: On a fourth hand, half the people screeching about "civil rights!" and "freedom of speech!" seem unable to comprehend that in a good 2/3ds of these cases, it was NOT the city police or federal authorities who were being douchebags, it was the private security of the building. Merely because the government works in the building doesn't mean they manage it. (Except probably at the FBI office)(But not necessarily) Usually office buildings are handed over to management companies who handle the security, janitorial, maintenance etc., chores, especially when the government won't give the departments enough even to fix up the exteriors of the buildings. So if CBRE hires a 3d party security company who is told "Keep idiots away from the back entrance, don't let them take pictures," that's not a violation of your rights, that's not a censorship or free speech--that's you being somewhere you're not really supposed to be, running up against a $9/hr security guard who doesn't want to get fired because some tourist got caught on the fifteenth floor.


I'll just address your fourth hand (you freak).  The proper response to a private security guard who is being rude is "go away".  If you are on the sidewalk, you have every right to be there and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.  If it's government property, which means public property, things can get a little fuzzy, and while you still have the right to be there and take pictures, telling Barney to bugger off is probably not a good idea.  Just step onto the sidewalk, continue to take pictures, and ignore the moron.
2014-07-21 12:16:07 AM  
1 vote:

Gyrfalcon: Can people TRY to direct their ire in the right direction for once: Get the security guards trained, get a proper mission statement from the building management, and put a leash on the 1/3 of Federal buildings where their own people are running amok. And if you have to take a picture of the employee entrance of the FBI building, BuzzFeed, maybe--just maybe--you should let the agents know BEFORE you do it, instead of afterward.


What's the difference?

If they can't say "no," what does informing them gain you? A record, so they can put you on the surveillance list and send Homeland Security or FBI officers to your door?

Pandering to paranoia only justifies it. The fact is that not one single incident has been traced back to photographers. There was never anything that showed any terrorist or other malcontent needed a photograph in order to carry out whatever wrongdoing they had planned.

And what's the difference if I take a picture of the entrance vs. the rest of the building? Nobody has any expectation of privacy there. They're recording everything happening all around the building already, they're recording you on the sidewalk, what's the big difference in getting shots of the doorway?
2014-07-20 10:12:25 PM  
1 vote:

Olo Manolo: OgreMagi: Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....

In other words, "don't do something perfectly legal because, uhhh,  reasons."

You are the reason we have idiots in power.

I'm sorry, yes, you are correct and I am willing to change my stance. Everybody! Go forth and photograph doors and barricades and give shiat to the undertrained, underpayed, over-compensating security guards! We are changing the world here!!

Since I'm the problem for thinking one should pick their battles, and save the outrage for where it really matters... Please, tell me how you have got out of your computer chair and actually helped anything... And no, posting #kony2012 #savethetatas and being a buzzfeed "journalist's" cheerleader doesn't count....


Go to Photography is not a Crime blog.

You will find nearly 500 pages of blog entries (several per page) since 2007, documenting photographers being harassed, beaten, their equipment confiscated, evidence deleted, and photographers arrested for legal public photography and video surveillance.

The resulting publicity (and sometimes lawsuits) from the events documented there are being used to train police that they aren't allowed to do these things. It actually works.

It definitely works better than saying, "Okay, officer, just beat me and seize my equipment because you don't think I've justified my legal activities to your satisfaction."

The Buzzfeed guy surrendered to every demand before it became confrontational, but he's still getting the word out that yes, you are allowed to do these things, and yes, people with power are still trying to stop you from doing these things.

It doesn't matter if you think it's important or not. You don't have to use every right you have. It *is* important to photographers.
2014-07-20 09:42:42 PM  
1 vote:

Olo Manolo: OK, so Rosa Parks not complying is similar to some guy wanting to take stupid pictures of doors and barricades?  You got me there... The two examples you gave are people that went out for a stated purpose, and were admittedly doing just that.. The whiney


It's precisely the same. It's called civil disobedience. That happens when people are doing something they're allowed to do, then tell the cops "no" when the cops wrongly tell them to stop doing it.

Rosa Parks sat on that bus seat deliberately to cause a stir -- a righteous stir. She would be, by your definition, a whiny douche.

It's none of your business why Rosa Parks wanted to sit near the front of the bus. It didn't hurt her a bit to continue sitting at the back, after all -- she still ended up where she was going, right?

And it's none of your business why I want to take pictures of public landmarks. I don't have to justify that to you, nobody does. They're public landmarks, and the police, security, or nobody else deserves an explanation of why I'm taking photographs of anything I'm allowed to photograph.
2014-07-20 09:11:19 PM  
1 vote:

Fart_Machine: No, I'm discussing the reality of what will happen if you start taking pictures that will attract the attention of security on the premises.  The other guy who responded to me stated that it would be reasonable to ask permission first so you wouldn't be hassled.  Nobody in this article was detained or arrested by law enforcement.  Instead you had some private building rent-a-cops asking the reporter what they were doing and people are going ZOMG it's EAST GERMANY!!!111


He was also compliant and did what they told him to do, when in fact he was perfectly within his rights to continue photographing. As PINAC members have shown, when you assert your rights, it does often end in arrest. The Buzzfeed guy simply made note of being thrown out and did what he was told.

And he was detained and had his equipment seized while they called for *credentials* to his boss. I have a right to take pictures whether I'm a paid journalist or not. I do not have to provide any professional credentials.
2014-07-20 08:37:49 PM  
1 vote:

Dwight_Yeast: Lenny_da_Hog: Goddammit, who paints a picture of a can of tomato soup? Who on *earth* would do such a thing?

That doesn't make Warhol suspicious, and it doesn't make him a target for harassment. You not understanding why I want to take a picture of something doesn't make it suspicious, it just means you're not me.

Warhol had a different problem: copyright infringement, which he worked out with Campbell's.

But you missed my point: if you train not very bright people to look out for "suspicious" activity and you put "photography" on that list, they're going to jump on it like a dog on a bone. Now the Park Guards are the Washington Monument, the SS at the White House and the Capitol Police aren't going to think too hard about it, as they've got people taking pics of the buildings they guard all the time. But the bozo in the booth at the IRS? It's the highlight of his week.


This is why they need to be retrained. This is why the police need to be retrained as well. Some dolt planted the idea in their heads and essentially trained them wrong, and now they feel empowered to confront people over non-threatening and unsuspicious activities.
2014-07-20 06:45:18 PM  
1 vote:

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I don't really care about the 'I have a Constitutional Right to spy on people'  gang.  You actually don't.

I also have no problem with cops stopping me and asking questions if I'm doing something suspicious, like photographing government entrances and security procedures.  I don't think cops asking questions makes us a police state.  Where I would draw the line would be seizure, arrest, or a ticket.


You see, though, photography in public spaces ISN'T SUSPICIOUS. It's contrived bullshiat. It's superstitious witch-hunting.

Photographers photograph all kinds of things, and always have -- you have no idea how they plan to edit it, what sort of collection it might be for, or anything else. Case law in all fifty states protects the right to take photographs of public assets from public spaces.

But suddenly, after Homeland Insecurity decided to make everyone piss their pants, photography is suspicious behavior when it never was before, and there's no reason behind it. Not a single instance of a "terrorist casing the joint" with a camera has ever been documented.
2014-07-20 05:38:32 PM  
1 vote:

glmorrs1: Fart_Machine: Kibbler: How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos? Any examples?

If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave.  Come by and snap a photo on your phone?  Nobody is going to notice but the author of this piece had a story to pitch so that wasn't going to do.

What happened to asking permission? When I was really into photography if I was going to be shooting in front if a building or part of a building, it took like 30 seconds to go up to the security guard, tell them what's up, and ask if it's cool to take pictures. Never once got turned down or harassed, and a couple of times the security guards helped out keeping pedestrians out of the shot.

/Or is asking permission another hallmark of the police state?
//And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch about the guards stopping people on the sidewalk, all they did was point out a photo shoot was going on and ask the pedestrians to go around or wait a few seconds till I got the shot


Needing police permission to do something that isn't illegal?

Um, yeah. That's more than a hallmark. That's sort of the essence of the thing.
2014-07-20 03:55:10 PM  
1 vote:
Actually, it sounds as if top men said he could take pictures. Twitchy guards who would be in the immediate line of fire, not so much.
2014-07-20 03:44:38 PM  
1 vote:

John the Magnificent: Congratulations.

Your "Good Citizen" badge is waiting at reception.  Just turn in your copy of the Constitution and it will be yours to wear with pride.


Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.


It has nothing to do with being a "good citizen".  It has EVERYTHING to do with almost being one of the statistics I pointed out.  One evening at the office, security came up and asked me for my car keys.

The guard explained that a man had been noted about 20 minutes before, hovering around my car.  He matched the description of a former co-worker, so he'd called in the local police for assistance.  Because of the tint on my windows and the dark parking area, the interior of my car was not visible and the police wanted my keys so they would not have to break the window.

I had neglected to lock the door of my car when I had come back from lunch.  When the cops opened my car, they found a guy that had been fired the week before for slapping me.  He was armed with a semi automatic pistol and crouched in the back seat area.

Another woman that worked in the building, one of her sons had been killed by gunfire.  The parking lot was swarming with local press, even a couple of satellite trucks set up at the top of the hill.  Security closed the private road the building was located on and directed the press back up to the public road.  She'd come to the office because she was sick with grief and even more sickened by the press outside her home.  The head of the building's security detail arranged for her to take his car to his house so she could have some peace to make the arrangements to bury her child and showed her the back way off the property, far from the press.  He personally drove her car up to the press checkpoint and advised them she would not be making any sort of press statement.  Security's entire job description is to protect the building, occupants and contents.  Strangers are a threat until proven otherwise.
2014-07-20 02:24:45 PM  
1 vote:

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


Doesn't matter.  As soon as one of those guards spouted the "it's a post 9/11 world" bullshiat, they deserved to be beaten into a coma.
2014-07-20 01:16:07 PM  
1 vote:

John the Magnificent: Seeing that I am a Canadian and I work in the "press", I am getting a kick out of your comment. Unlike your country, the media is not allowed to lie about something to promote a political or personal agenda (ie Corporate Profits) but all in all we are pretty free up here. At least I can take pictures of buildings without being rousted by the police, so there is that.


#1 I didn't read your profile and didn't know you were Canadian or with the "press".

#2 Alex Consiglio, a Toronto Star photographer, was arrested at Toronto's Union Station, put into a headlock by a police officer, and ticketed for trespassing. This came after Consiglio had been asked at least twice to stop taking pictures, including pictures of police officers, and to leave the premises.

#3 Jennifer Pawluck arrested for taking photo of graffiti.

#4 Jakub Markiewicz was detained by security guards and arrested by police after filming the violent takedown of a man by security guards at Metrotown shopping mall in Burnaby, B.C.

#5 Then there's this documentary on Canadian press issues.

But I guess overall I was referring to court imposed media blackouts, like when that rapist couple was on trial and there was no news on Canadian TV about it, and US television channels were blacked out when they covered news of the crime or trial. Maybe you guys have made some changes since then.. if so congrats.
2014-07-20 01:02:56 PM  
1 vote:

Smackledorfer: quatchi: People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.

Can we not both think he is a dbag and think that the concern over pictures being taken is a little over the top?  This guy wasn't arrested, his photos weren't seized, nobody used any force on him besides "ok sir, time to keep moving" on him.

/meh.


"I could not take their photos since they had my camera. The four armed guards prevented me from moving or getting on my bike. After calling my boss, and discussing with the guards, I was given my camera back. "Be smarter next time," he said, "and don't take any more photos here."

Enjoy your daily dose of the Kardashians while you can.  It's later than you think.
2014-07-20 01:02:22 PM  
1 vote:
My dad's a professional photographer, and he's pretty much incapable of driving by an interesting structure or natural formation without stopping to take pictures of it.  I was with him once in the early '90s when he decided to take pics of the outside of a local office building (from its landscaped patio area). Shortly after he started clicking away, a security guard showed up to shoo us off the property.  He hadn't asked permission beforehand as far as I know, and I agree with glmorrs1 that asking permission is good form. The point is that this is what security guards do, pre- or post-9/11 - it's kind of the essence of the job to be at least a little self-important and power-trippy. If they don't have a gun, then they have to use bluster.

/On the other hand, the two security guards I interacted with last night while staying late at work were perfectly nice.
2014-07-20 12:47:05 PM  
1 vote:

Doktor_Zhivago: We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos

Yeah, it's chaos, but it's beyond that. It's paranoia mixed with strutting bravado mixed with a total breakdown in communication.

My favorite bit about this whole circus was a few years ago when a news crew was filming at DC's Union Station. They were interviewing Amtrak's head of security, and just as he was saying that people are free to use cameras in train stations, a security guard walks up and tells the crew they can't film there. Even when confronted with who was standing in front of him (his boss's boss to the  nth power) he still wouldn't back down.
2014-07-20 12:46:18 PM  
1 vote:

Cataholic: I'm sure countless numbers of tourists take photos in front of these buildings every day.  Yet, we never seem to read anyone else complain about being harassed for doing so.  I wonder what this particular photographer did differently to attract their attention.


He wasn't taking pictures of the fronts.
And he wasn't dressed or acting like a tourist.

He was taking pictures of the backs and sides of buildings that had no aesthetic appeal.
2014-07-20 12:14:18 PM  
1 vote:

Fart_Machine: Kibbler: How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos? Any examples?

If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave.  Come by and snap a photo on your phone?  Nobody is going to notice but the author of this piece had a story to pitch so that wasn't going to do.


What happened to asking permission? When I was really into photography if I was going to be shooting in front if a building or part of a building, it took like 30 seconds to go up to the security guard, tell them what's up, and ask if it's cool to take pictures. Never once got turned down or harassed, and a couple of times the security guards helped out keeping pedestrians out of the shot.

/Or is asking permission another hallmark of the police state?
//And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch about the guards stopping people on the sidewalk, all they did was point out a photo shoot was going on and ask the pedestrians to go around or wait a few seconds till I got the shot
2014-07-20 12:04:43 PM  
1 vote:

quatchi: What got me was the disconnect between the PR people saying "No problem taking pictures. Totes legal" and the reality when the photog/reporter tested that claim.

People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.


Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people take photos of these buildings every year without incident - but then most of them don't make a point of photographing the people who work there or of all the visible security features on the building.
2014-07-20 11:58:38 AM  
1 vote:
"You are suspicious, and we are in a post-9/11 world," he said.

So when do we go back to being a free country?
2014-07-20 11:53:04 AM  
1 vote:

Praise Cheesus: TEA-PARTY-PATRIOT: Love the apologists in this thread, why the fark have rights if you can't exercize them?


And it's nothing like 2nd amendment, open carry loons- it's about freedom of speech and a free press.


Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want.

* Opens bag of Purina Troll Chow *

In many cases, security will come out and talk to people photographing entrances that are usually designated "employee only" because they cannot tell if the subject is:

A) A completely befuddled tourist
B) A stalker capturing the day to day movements of the object of obsession
C) An ex spouse/lover looking for the easiest way to gain access to the building
D) A reporter for some internet based "publication" that the guard may not have ever heard of

Considering how easy it is to use a color printer and Photoshop to make a press card and list the name of some website as your employer, D) can look suspicious.  Any responsible security guard will come out, ask what you're up to and if they don't like the answer, will request the assistance of the guys that are allowed guns and possess badges with the authority to detain you.

Why?  Let's look at the statistics from 2002 to 2011, as provided by the Bureau of Justice:

In 2011, about 1 in 5 victims of workplace homicide was a government employee.
From 2002 to 2011, the annual average rate of simple assault in the workplace against government employees (18.9 per 1,000) was more than three times that of private-sector employees (4.6 per 1,000).
Serious violent crime accounted for a larger percentage of workplace violence against private-sector employees (25%) than government employees (15%).
From 2002 to 2011, about 96% of workplace violence against government employees was against state, county, and local employees, who made up 81% of the total government workforce.
Male government employees we ...


Congratulations.

Your "Good Citizen" badge is waiting at reception.  Just turn in your copy of the Constitution and it will be yours to wear with pride.


Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
2014-07-20 11:45:17 AM  
1 vote:

TEA-PARTY-PATRIOT: Love the apologists in this thread, why the fark have rights if you can't exercize them?


And it's nothing like 2nd amendment, open carry loons- it's about freedom of speech and a free press.


Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want.


* Opens bag of Purina Troll Chow *

In many cases, security will come out and talk to people photographing entrances that are usually designated "employee only" because they cannot tell if the subject is:

A) A completely befuddled tourist
B) A stalker capturing the day to day movements of the object of obsession
C) An ex spouse/lover looking for the easiest way to gain access to the building
D) A reporter for some internet based "publication" that the guard may not have ever heard of

Considering how easy it is to use a color printer and Photoshop to make a press card and list the name of some website as your employer, D) can look suspicious.  Any responsible security guard will come out, ask what you're up to and if they don't like the answer, will request the assistance of the guys that are allowed guns and possess badges with the authority to detain you.

Why?  Let's look at the statistics from 2002 to 2011, as provided by the Bureau of Justice:

In 2011, about 1 in 5 victims of workplace homicide was a government employee.
From 2002 to 2011, the annual average rate of simple assault in the workplace against government employees (18.9 per 1,000) was more than three times that of private-sector employees (4.6 per 1,000).
Serious violent crime accounted for a larger percentage of workplace violence against private-sector employees (25%) than government employees (15%).
From 2002 to 2011, about 96% of workplace violence against government employees was against state, county, and local employees, who made up 81% of the total government workforce.
Male government employees were more likely than female government employees to face a stranger in an incident of workplace violence from 2002 to 2011.
From 2002 to 2011, female government employees were more likely than male government employees to be attacked in the workplace by someone with whom they had a work relationship.

So, perhaps now it's understandable why security has issues with someone that claims to be studying the architecture of government buildings but chooses to focus on things like entrances and barricades?
2014-07-20 11:40:24 AM  
1 vote:

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....


Yeah, the nerve that asshole. Doing something legal on purpose like that.
2014-07-20 11:35:33 AM  
1 vote:

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


Wrong.

A camera is not the same thing as a gun. Go be scared somewhere else.
2014-07-20 11:33:25 AM  
1 vote:

Fart_Machine: Kibbler: How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos? Any examples?

If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave.  Come by and snap a photo on your phone?  Nobody is going to notice but the author of this piece had a story to pitch so that wasn't going to do.


Well I'm done with this thread after this.  We have two statements.

"If I hung out by a federal building with professional equipment taking pictures of entry and exit point and security areas, yeah i might get someone to come out and tell me to leave."

And

"Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want. "

"I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want. "

"I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want. "
2014-07-20 11:29:00 AM  
1 vote:
What got me was the disconnect between the PR people saying "No problem taking pictures. Totes legal" and the reality when the photog/reporter tested that claim.

People calling the photog a Dbag who deserved this treatment are flat out not getting it.
2014-07-20 11:04:41 AM  
1 vote:

Fart_Machine: TEA-PARTY-PATRIOT: Love the apologists in this thread, why the fark have rights if you can't exercize them?


And it's nothing like 2nd amendment, open carry loons- it's about freedom of speech and a free press.


Personally I never leave home without at least two Nikon SLRs sometimes I throw a Canon and Olympus in there too and I'll be damned if I'm not going to take photos of whatever I want.

Unless you're one of those people who think cameras steal your soul a camera isn't going to kill you. However if you make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious it's gonna draw security attention. Likewise if you want to openly display a rifle.


How do you use a camera to make an ass of yourself trying to look suspicious while taking photographs of a public building from a public sidewalk, a building that is part of an agency that has posted that there is no problem with taking photos?  Any examples?
2014-07-20 10:59:12 AM  
1 vote:

DrBenway: TV's Vinnie: Not to sound racist, but notice how all of these security goons also happen to be of the blah persuasion? Seems that if you ever encounter a blah security guard, you're going to have a bad time.

[static2.wikia.nocookie.net image 670x695]

...since it doesn't really matter what comes after that first phrase, ever, because you've already stepped in it. How can anyone not know that?

Kibbler: Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos

And nothing bad can ever come out of an extended period of chaos.  You don't ever see bad things coalescing and gradually growing worse during a 13-year-period of chaos.  No, eventually, things right themselves and we're all happy again and the bad stuff goes away, and we think, well we certainly feel foolish for worrying, now that the trains run on time and our national pride has been restored.

For all that, you're not making much of an argument that we live in a police state. Just, by way of sarcasm, that extended periods of chaos are bad. And no-one was suggesting that it was good.


I didn't say we lived in a police state.  I said we live in a surveillance state, but it has actually gone beyond surveillance, it is now a knee-jerk reflex that anyone taking pictures of a building is "suspicious" because we live in a "post 9/11 world."

The phrase "police state" is loaded, as Zhivago makes clear, because it's too easy to say "totally non-American repressive Stalinist regime, i.e., East Germany."

There's a broad continuum between a society that is generally considered to be open and free, and one that is a Stalinist slave state.  Not actually reaching the "Stalinist slave state" point does not mean that everything is hunky dory (at least, as far as I'm concerned).  You say "And no-one was suggesting that it was good," but to my interpretation, there were comments in this thread along the lines of "paranoid pants-pissers should stop pissing their pants, nothing to worry about."  Maybe I misinterpreted those remarks; maybe others misinterpreted my remarks; maybe some of both; maybe neither.

There are (to my mind) things going on that are far worse than dim-witted security guards shooing away people with cameras from buildings that matter to absolutely nobody; but it is a symptom, and a bad one, again, in my opinion.
2014-07-20 10:54:35 AM  
1 vote:

Doktor_Zhivago: Everyone who argued with me in this thread is being reported at my local ministry of information office.


If I understand you correctly in this thread, there is a threshold that equates "East Germany" and until we reach that precise threshold, everyone is a paranoid idiot who should just calm the f*ck down.  Never mind whether things that happen today would not have been tolerated in 2000--paranoid idiots who should just calm the f*ck down.  When they start shooting us for trying to cross the border into Mexico, then we can complain.

(Except that, at that point, we can't.)
2014-07-20 10:49:57 AM  
1 vote:

Doktor_Zhivago: Kibbler: And nothing bad can ever come out of an extended period of chaos.  You don't ever see bad things coalescing and gradually growing worse during a 13-year-period of chaos.  No, eventually, things right themselves and we're all happy again and the bad stuff goes away, and we think, well we certainly feel foolish for worrying, now that the trains run on time and our national pride has been restored.

Ok when the Sicherheitsdienst starts coming to take people in the middle of the night we can start godwinning.  Until then please calm down.  The photographer was asked to leave not sentenced to hard labor.

BEING ASKED TO LEAVE IS NOT WHAT POLICE STATES DO.


You're the one who's shouting.  And statements like, "You can't take pictures of this door" are not requests.

calmer-n-you-are.jpg
2014-07-20 10:32:34 AM  
1 vote:

Doktor_Zhivago: Ok when the Sicherheitsdienst starts coming to take people in the middle of the night we can start godwinning.


The CIA have been abducting people from their homes in the night for nearly 15 years, but they're brown and not Americans so they don't count to you huh?
2014-07-20 10:29:52 AM  
1 vote:

Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.


You need to watch The Lives of Others.  America has become East Germany, but thanks for playing.
2014-07-20 10:28:10 AM  
1 vote:
Seriously though, somebody needs to organized a mass-photographing of those buildings.
2014-07-20 10:23:00 AM  
1 vote:

LeoffDaGrate: SauronWasFramed: old news is old.....we live in a police state.

the reporter is lucky he didn't get Rodney King'ed

You live in a police state only if you're paranoid and feel oppressed.  That says volumes about you.


Yeah! You shut up and go away, guy! It's only a police state once the upper middle class is uncomfortable!
2014-07-20 10:22:08 AM  
1 vote:

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


LOL WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CARRYING LETHAL WEAPONS AROUND LIKE A CRANKY TODDLER AND EXERCISING FREE SPEECH

ALSO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKING THE PUBLIC UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MURDER TOYS AND IRRITATING A GOVERNMENT THAT SUPPOSEDLY ANSWERS TO US WITH A NONLETHAL CAMERA

You may have also missed the point where the person was there getting photos for a specific other article which is linked to at the bottom of the page.
2014-07-20 10:10:22 AM  
1 vote:

Doktor_Zhivago: We don't live in a police state. Good Lord you people are dramatic. East Germany was a police state.

We live in a state where the laws can't keep up with the ever expanding technology produced at an ever increasing rate. It's not a sinister conspiracy it's just chaos


And nothing bad can ever come out of an extended period of chaos.  You don't ever see bad things coalescing and gradually growing worse during a 13-year-period of chaos.  No, eventually, things right themselves and we're all happy again and the bad stuff goes away, and we think, well we certainly feel foolish for worrying, now that the trains run on time and our national pride has been restored.
hej
2014-07-20 10:07:53 AM  
1 vote:

Olo Manolo: Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....


When is the last time you heard of somebody dying from a photography wound?
2014-07-20 09:53:48 AM  
1 vote:
Reporter seems like a total douchebag. "Im only taking a picture of a public sidewalk".. meanwhile public sidewalk is lined with massive security barriers.

"An ARMED Bike Cop approached me!"... really? An armed police officer?

And I know this guy makes it seem like he only took a single snapshot of these places, but something tells me he was being a total douche about it since his dumb article doesn't really focus on ugly architecture at all, and instead is just a series of entrances and barriers.

Im all for taking pics and video of cops when they're arresting somebody, but Im not too keen on trolling security around government buildings because Im not 14 years old with a skateboard.
2014-07-20 09:53:30 AM  
1 vote:

seenonradio: People going on about a "post 9/11 world" are overlooking things like the Navy Yard shooting that were much more recent.
It's not terrorists that we have to guard against as much as it is a crazy loner with a grudge.


And those guys aren't likely to be taking pictures of buildings they're intimately familiar with...
2014-07-20 09:51:09 AM  
1 vote:
i183.photobucket.com
2014-07-20 09:42:31 AM  
1 vote:

edmo: I'm a photographer and therefore a terrorist. And I have a security clearance. I used to be on the TSA watch for who knows why. Now I'm not and have a TSA pre check authorization.

Next they'll find out I have an interest in other languages and countries and have to lock me up.

/it's people like me that have ruined America, or so I've been told


Meantime, of course, people who have guns or threaten to bring guns are just A-OK, the most 'Murcan thing we can have.

/Unless they're blah.
//Or brown.
///Or kinda swarthy-looking.
///Or loners.
///Or just look liberal.
2014-07-20 09:41:58 AM  
1 vote:
Not to sound racist, but notice how all of these security goons also happen to be of the blah persuasion? Seems that if you ever encounter a blah security guard, you're going to have a bad time.

static2.wikia.nocookie.net
2014-07-20 09:41:34 AM  
1 vote:
Seeing the quality of the DoE building and property (in terms of maintenance/repairs) compared to the others should qualify for [SAD].
2014-07-20 09:33:28 AM  
1 vote:

hardinparamedic: This was a gay joke, right?

I ask because usually using the words "Spongebob" and "top" in the same sentence usually refers to something homosexual.


You move in interesting circles.
2014-07-20 09:22:09 AM  
1 vote:
I'm a photographer and therefore a terrorist. And I have a security clearance. I used to be on the TSA watch for who knows why. Now I'm not and have a TSA pre check authorization.

Next they'll find out I have an interest in other languages and countries and have to lock me up.

/it's people like me that have ruined America, or so I've been told
2014-07-20 05:26:33 AM  
1 vote:
old news is old.....we live in a police state.

the reporter is lucky he didn't get Rodney King'ed
2014-07-20 01:11:48 AM  
1 vote:
Thou shalt not go around poking the bear for no reason other than "public area! I can take photos! I'm being repressed!".....

This is no better than the open carry activist idiots... Why push your luck "justbecause you can" or to "prove a point".... oh yeah, because you are a childish AW....
 
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report