Advocacy and NPAC

[Amber Bracken]

I came across another stellar example of advocacy and education from the NPPA. http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/2012/08/07/cover-the-conventions-and-protests/ So I'm wondering out loud what would it take for NPAC to start to emulate that aspect of their organization. The lack of it is a sucking black hole this side of the 49th parallel. As a non-volunteer so far, I'm definitely not criticizing, but just hoping to spark discussion. Cheers.

[Victor Biro]

Amber,

I am going to guess that the deafening silence on the subject represents an ambivalence about the subject, but I think a Canadian-specific requirement may act as a catalyst to discussion.

In the US there has been a lot of discussion recently about recording of crime and other scenes by the media, and the police's attempts to thwart them. The result has been lawsuits that have created very clear case law that caused policy statements to be issued to front-line police on constitutional guarantees.

Here in Canada, there does not seem to be the level of conflict, or it is not resulting in the lawsuits that are the catalysts for the case law, policy statements and guarantees of access.

I am not talking about any exceptional access to scenes. I am talking about not being singled out by police for taking pictures at the scene of an accident, while spectators are wandering around the scene.

Several specific examples have happened in the Greater Toronto Area involving the OPP over the past few weeks. They have escorted us off scenes and threatened to arrest (and seize cameras as evidence) or get warrants for our photos and video. Where possible they have obstructed our ability to access scenes, even when spectators are wandering around.

There has been some very vociferous conflicts with one of the accident reconstructionists at the OPP, through the OPP media relations officer, over the practice of media taking the license plates from the pictures and video at scenes and then contacting families. This practice is causing the OPP to undermine our ability to gain access to scenes, even when the public is wandering around.

Theoretically, they don't have a legal leg to stand on, but on the ground they can still put obstacles in our way and even arrest photojournalists. Regardless of whether the charge is valid, or if they drop the charge later, entering into the process of arresting us achieves what they want: stop shooting pictures at accident scenes.

Regardless of how civil the photojournalist is, or compliant, at a certain point we still have a role at the scene of the accident that is symbiotic with the public education mandate of police.

Without public awareness of the consequences of things like drinking and driving, the results are an abstraction to the public. The police are loosing sight of this and becoming hostile towards media, and we need an advocate to remind them of our shared role in informing the public of these events.

Thoughts?

Victor
 

[Warren Toda]

In the US there has been a lot of discussion recently about recording of crime and other scenes by the media, and the police's attempts to thwart them. The result has been lawsuits that have created very clear case law that caused policy statements to be issued to front-line police on constitutional guarantees.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently settled a lawsuit against Washington DC police:

In settling an ACLU-NCA case, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department issued a groundbreaking new General Order explicitly recognizing that “members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record MPD members while MPD members are conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space.” The order reminds officers that such activity “does not constitute suspicious conduct,” and instructs officers that they “shall not . . . in any way threaten, intimidate or otherwise discourage an individual from recording members’ enforcement activities.”