Fight for your right to photograph busses, by Jeffrey Veen

Fight for your right to photograph busses

Considering the size and density of San Francisco, our public transit is, in a word, deplorable. Despite rising rates, the Muni system's budget remains deeply in the red, and service continues to be sporadic at best. So it's quite a surprise to find Muni worried more about enforcing a secret ban on photography than, say, how often the busses run.

But that's what happened this weekend, when blogger and photographer Steve Malik found himself nearly arrested for trying to take a photograph on the Montgomery St. Muni Station.

Boing Boing has a good overview, as does SFist. And if you're in the mood for protest, consider meeting other SFist readers at a camera-wielding protest in the Embarcadero Station this Saturday, Feb 19, at noon. Oh, and you might want to print this PDF of photographer's legal rights. You never know...

Update: SFist Jackson digs deeper.

This entry was written by Jeffrey Veen and posted 14 February 2005 at 1:23 PM. It was filed under Personal.

Comments

1. On 14 February 2005 at 2:16 PM Merlin wrote:

Except for the police intervention point, this is similar to an experience I had at Castro Station Sunday before last (2/6). I was taking this photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/merlin/4389982/) and heard the voice over the Station intercom very pointedly announcing that taking photos on MUNI is illegal.

I walked straight over and asked what law I was meant to be breaking and under whose authority I was being asked to stop. They had no idea. I wouldn’t leave without a code that they could cite. Spent 12 minutes watching two workers flip through comb-bound books to find the reference to this notional law. After 15 minutes, one of the booth folk stepped out, and was very nice but not particularly helpful. I said “Is this a city, state, or federal law that you claim I’m breaking?” and she said, (yes, I wrote it all down), “I think it’s because of 9/11.”

So there you go. Mystery laws with very real enforcement, tangentially related to 9/11. Let the eagle soar.

2. On 14 February 2005 at 2:29 PM Jackson West wrote:

Can I quote you on that, Merlin?

I'm following up with a number of contacts. Bruce Brugman at the Guardian was nice enough to get me in touch with the Society for Professional Journalists who I'll be talking to. I also have a comment from the Muni spokesperson. It'll all be in an update tomorrow. But yeah, scoured the Muni and SFPD sites and found nothing in writing (it's not like they've had, uh, three and half years). Interesting to hear that it's on the intercom. Also, our legal eagle, SFist Rita, even went over the USA PATRIOT Act and found nothing.

I'm not sure what's worse -- the impact to the first amendment or that fact that there's a 'secret' law being enforced by already overworked Fare Inspectors.

3. On 14 February 2005 at 2:56 PM Merlin wrote:

Of course, Jackson. Email me.

4. On 14 February 2005 at 3:27 PM Jamison wrote:

Nearly every time I take Muni instead of my bike I grab a snapshot or two and have never heard anything from Muni employees.

I'll be sure to grab a couple more on the way home tonight, probably of broken fare gates or empty booths.

5. On 14 February 2005 at 3:52 PM Tony wrote:

Don't forget that throughout the history of the US (and perhaps other countries), there has often been a disconnect between the letter or spirit of the law and it's interpretation and prosecution, especially during times. The only thing that immediately comes to mind is the prosecution of dissenters under the Espionage Act during WWI. Even the supreme court upheld the restriction of free speech in that era, not that it wasn't regreted in hindsight.

6. On 16 February 2005 at 4:16 PM John Dowdell wrote:

Actually, I have little interest in taking photos of train stations, but I'd really like to continue to read a book while smoking my pipe in Golden Gate Park, without being arrested. May I, please?

7. On 16 February 2005 at 4:32 PM veen wrote:

Depends on what's in the pipe, I suspect.

8. On 27 February 2005 at 11:31 AM bmaury wrote:

a couple of the fare inspectors at montgomery street muni are prickely, but i'm not sure this amounts to treading on one's civil rights.

it is unsettling that this has evidently happened at more than one station, but what happened probably less a conspiracy to stop someone from taking a picture, and more just a grumpy fare inspector whose only pleasure is ruffling the feathers of sensitive passengers.

that may be worth a protest in and of itself, but i'm not sure this is as serious as you are making it out to be.

with respect,
/b