News organizations in Seattle have been ordered by a judge to hand over photographs and videos to the Seattle Police Department to aid investigations into alleged arson of police vehicles and theft of police weapons.
The judge set what some regard as a dangerous precedent that threatens to bring the free press into the domain of a surveillance state.
As reported by the Seattle Times, the Seattle Police Department successfully subpoenaed five Seattle-based news outlets whose reporters were covering events at a protest that took place on May 30th. Typically, unpublished material is protected and not available to law enforcement. King County Superior Court Judge Nelson Lee decided that the Police Department were justified in their request to access the photographs and footage, but must demonstrate that they have exhausted all other means of inquiry. The police will not have access to material captured on reporters’ mobile phones.
The five news outlets — Seattle Times and TV stations KIRO 7, KING 5, KOMO 4 and KCPQ 13 — are expected to appeal the decision.
News organizations may now fear that in the future judges will be able to decide which information their reporters will be forced to turn over to authorities. Furthermore, as observed by Seattle Times Executive Editor Michele Matassa Flores, such a move undermines the independence of the press and might put journalists at risk while reporting.
Lead image by Damien Conway, used under Creative Commons.
I don't see it. Everyone assumes, or should assume, any photo taken by a photojournalist can find its way into publication, for the whole world to see. How is that different from having them provided to law enforcement? Can the police not use a published photograph as evidence?
The police can do what ever they want with the photos they own and shot.
The judge is going to face the risk of looking really bad if any confiscated photo is found to have been altered by the police.
Why would you assume the photos might be altered? Of course that's possible but I would think it much less likely they would alter a photo obtained from someone else, since there would be an unaltered original out there somewhere.
Where, in the wide world, are journalists perceived as being neutral? You touched on that in your original comment but I think understated the point.
I recall some old dead commie said "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.
In what way does this judge's order, remove that freedom? Does it limit their ability to publish what they like and how they like? Is there some restriction on what they can or cannot, must or must not, write or show? Perhaps the extent of the judgement was not included in the article!?
When the news media is forced to become an investigative arm of the police that means they are not independent or free to publish (or not publish) their "truth" or "viewpoint"and will not be trusted by the people anymore whether fans of the NYT, Fox or NPR.
A friend is a news producer in Hong Kong, and says both sides will talk to them in order to get their story out, if you know the news is in the bag for the police you will not talk to them if you are a HK protesting China....
I sure hope the police exhausted every other way of getting that information instead of being lazy and having reporters do their job. So now Fake New is supposed to be trusted....?
I see your point but, from what I've read, reporters and photojournalists are already not trusted by the protesters and anarchists. Perhaps it's a thin line but I don't know that I agree that being forced to turn over photos, they've already taken, amounts to being an investigative arme for the police.
Being the trusting sort, I assume they only went after the photos in the absence of alternate sources of information.
You're losing me here and I'm doing my best to keep up; how does this judge's order "take out the journalists"? I agree with the rest of your statement.
Ah. Okay. Thanks.
So many brainwashed people in comment section. The Police is a basic component of every country, it is not possible without it. Right now, police in the United States are having a very difficult time because most of the media have opposed them in an effort to influence the upcoming elections.
An opinion article, in any language, is still just someone's opinion.
It's not?
Could you elaborate?
How is the opinion, expressed in your excerpt from the original article, more than just someone's opinion? I assumed, perhaps wrongly, you left it in German to somehow lend it more credence. And if not, I can't imagine your purpose.
I don't understand your question and so cannot answer.
I honestly have no answer for you but will readily admit to all manner of diverse sins.
If you asked me if your dress makes you look fat, I'll lie. Other than that, no.
There's nothing else to say. I'll tell a lie to spare someone's feelings but for no other reason.
The police are for protecting citizens and upholding the law, abducting people and abusing people (even people who are protesting peacefully) isn't something they should do!
Majority of police doing exactly that, protecting citizens and properties. If police will say leave the place you have to leave the place. Thats their job. You totally dont know whats going on and you just folowing fake narrative. They did not nothing like you say in your answer.
Dude stop being such a Trump-fan, there are so many video's online from people getting put in unmarked vans by people with military clothes that have no id's or markings on them! STOP BEING BLIND! Fake narrative, It's a video it's kinda hard to fake it!
How would u like it if somone throws u in a van, without knowing why and who?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJSiV_R2uiI
:D you are so funny "without knowing why and who?" "STOP BEING BLIND!?" Dude they have an uniform :D! how you can write "without knowing why and who?" .... check the video from Chris Chappell
And where do u see their names? Or when are they answering any questions, I also don't see a badge anywhere? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGgJCyvxdQg
And yeah U are blind if u keep defending the dumbest president in the world! U do know everyone in the world laughs with the US?!
Nothings happen there, they are not there for talking with rioters, this guy had helmet and equipments which protect him during the clash with police. Of course he is suspicious person. They had uniform so he can clearly see they working for government. You are really totally brainwashed. :)
Why all the Trump trolls posting here? They defend a failed presidency, one that never sought to unite the country, only to further a still unknown agenda which seems to want to ‘break’ the country anyway it can. I understand there are many people posting here that are not interested in photography, but only what social media avenues they can usurp.
The next time you open your mouth, start and end your sentences with "squawk. squawk". That's basically all you're doing.
Sadly, social media has more information than mainstream media.
As opposed to Trumpish trolling a photo blog? Many social media pundits and trolls, are criminal, when it comes to the pandemic. In my country the amount of threats against public figures has skyrocketed since social media infected the minds of less educated.
Wrong, again. Mainstream media has manipulated the narrative of the protests as peaceful and cops are bad. Then, gullible fools like you drink whatever they poor in the cup. You turn a blind eye to the outcome in a lot of these "peaceful" protests. The reason I'm picking on the media more than the libs and Dems is because there was a time when we could trust the media. But, nowadays, oh, hell no. As for libs and Dems, we know they lie and are divisive so no surprise there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJSiV_R2uiI
They following instruction to prevent doxing
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portland/
Do you think that if the 'protesters' were peaceful and weren't destroying private/public property that the judge would have given this order?
You have a way with words, I'll give you that. So it's good to burn down parts of a city even though those parts have nothing to do with the subject of the protest. Did you know that in the Constitution, there is a bit about property rights? Property rights are every bit as important as free speech and freedom of religion in a free society. You obviously disagree and believe burning a business is a good thing. I only wish that you owned one of the businesses that are now a pile of rubble. I would enjoy watching your celebration.
It's not the 5th Amendment. It's the 4th Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Let's see, there are about 330,000,000 people in the states. Let's think about how many interactions have happened in the past year between the police and the public. I don't have that statistic, but it's probably in the millions. In 2017, a high number of police killings took place, 987 if I'm adding correctly. That was for the whole of the US. Those stats aren't broken out in justified killings and unjustified.
In Chicago, there was 650 murders in 2017, in 2016, it was 771. Since they were murders, none were justified. This is where many of us have a difficult time with this whole protest thing. There should be marching in the streets of Chicago demanding an end to the carnage, yet, you can hear a pin drop.
No person should be killed by an officer by illegal means...none. No person should be murdered either, yet why is it that you and the rest of your city burners (real or rooting for them) don't have protests in every city that is inundated with killing?
I can't wait to read your expletive laced reply.
One stat I found showed over 3,587,400 police encounters annually. The rate of use of lethal force in police-public encounters is 0.0000043535286 %
Thanks, Steve. I had missed that.
I don't live in the US, so forgive me if my questions sound naive, but here they are: If a media has pictures that could help solve a murder, wouldn't they be required to hand them over to the investigators if asked? And if they're not required to do so, wouldn't they do it anyway, as a civic duty? And if they would do it for a murder, why wouldn't they do it for another kind of crime?
I'm not at all certain shield laws are applicable here, the source (the photographer) having already been identified. I can't imagine the subjects of the photos would be considered sources unless they offered to be photographed committing a crime.
Photographers, or those who pay attention to a visual record, should be some of the first to realize that what one sees in media or within these complex political machinations of public interaction, is that PAID provocateur’s are often the ones who are destroying property. This is a fundamental truth of every urban human rights protest that escalates to confrontation. Period.
I am not a fan of bad language, but direct and crude vs sneeky agenda, I find direct to still be much better. I totally get why he doesn't even try anymore.
I really don't want to continue this but have to ask, you aren't a fan of bad language but it doesn't bother you to make assumptions regarding people's intentions and motivations? And that is somehow different from a sneaky agenda, which I haven't seen demonstrated in this thread except from our erstwhile Mr. McButterly.
All that aside, I really like your car and airplane photos.
If only it were that simple. While Dingus is the poster child for the disruption of intelligent debate, he's certainly not the only one, from either side of any given subject. Also, it would be helpful if Fstoppers didn't publish such inflammatory articles with the obvious intent of stirring the pot.
As an aside, when I do find an article, firmly based on photography, discarding the this vs that gear articles, and comment for some reason, I find myself one of a very few people to do so. Maybe that's why they publish articles like this one: articles about photography just don't generate comments which advertisers probably use as a metric for what they're getting for their money.