This photograph is an absolute disgrace:

[cboy4]

KGO cameraman Randy Davis (left) was shoved by Golden Gate Bridge officer when he tried to shoot footage of an anti-war protest at the Golden Gate Bridge. His camera was broken and his face was cut in the incident.

BAY AREA / Officers won't let protesters cross bridge / Traffic snarled as 10 CodePink members are arrested during vigil for slain GIs -- all bikes and pedestrians barred for hours


This effing bridge cop had to have been a Republican for wanting to censor the news! :grr:



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/02/BAGVRNBD3H1.DTL




GOOD FOR CODEPINK!

[Richardo]

1. Wow. That's an unwarranted assumption...

"This effing bridge cop had to have been a Republican for wanting to censor the news!"

Really? You think it was his own discretion? You really think his political affiliation (if any) drove his actions? Any chance he waas following standard operation procedure or the orders of a supervisor?

Do YOUR political views govern what you do in your job?

It's disappointing that Code Pink did not get to have their protest, but I understand it had more to do with a lack of the proper permits than with political suppression. (I mean really: suppression of a progressive protest in SAN FRANCISCO?)

[cboy4]

3. Do you really think that the Golden Gate Bridge agency has a

policy in place where officers are instructed to stop news people from photographing protests?

You seriously don't believe that political views govern what people do in their jobs?

How naive.

[Richardo]

16. My understanding is that they closed the bridge to *all* pedestrian traffic

Maybe the KGO guy was trying to get on the bridge.

But then, that would mean that the cop was just trying to do his job instead of being a Nazi.

[cboy4]

27. Oh stop. Have you ever participated in a protest? Everyone knows the

cops don't want the media around when they start arresting people, because it makes them look bad.

Any civil rights violation is captured on videotape and they don't like that.

By the way, the media is granted certain privileges that the general public is not, such as covering disasters.

News crews are allowed to cross through barriers to do their jobs.

[Richardo]

28. Ah. Then it's a 'police' thing, not a 'Republican police' thing

Now that makes a lot more sense. The police ARE notoriously sensitive to being filmed.

You know, if you hadn't made that remark about him being Republican I probably would never have even commented.

[dogday]

30. So you are just protecting Republicans

Ok, well now I feel so much better about your views....

[paulk]

43. another unwarranted assumption

:thumbsdown:

[dogday]

45. Read his statement

You know, if you hadn't made that remark about him being Republican I probably would never have even commented.

Most warranted... but you keep posting nothing but drive-byes without any backup....:thumbsdown:

[paulk]

50. I have read Richardo's statements in this thread

and he is clearly not "protecting Republicans" as you say.

He is commenting on the OP's claim that the police officer is a Republican, something that the OP has no way of knowing the truth of.

You have taken one post of his, out of context, and used it to make an incorrect assumption as to his motives.

[dogday]

52. And you have taken it your way

He states he would of never posted if the word Republican was not used.... He is taking to task other things as well in his post, not just this issue. I find it weird for anyone to take the side of a Republican on a Democratic board, assumed or otherwise...

[paulk]

58. he took the side of the police officer

he did not take the side of a Republican

[dogday]

60. That was obvious nt

[cboy4]

35. Wow, the Republican comment is all that's bothering you?

I find it fascinating you're seemingly such a champion for Republicans on a Democratic board.

I think a Republican cop is far more likely to suppress a anti-war rally than a Democratic cop.

That's why I said what I said.

[StrictlyRockers]

70. Thank god for repuke puppy watch dogs...gotta make sure we don't insult them

...by associating them with cops.


:P

[Clark2008]

72. Actally, no they're not.

They may be GIVEN certain privileges by emergency service personnel, but they're not granted them by law.

A reporter is just a citizen when it comes to covering events in public places.

I was a reporter for 12 years and I covered emergency service personnel. While the cops and EMS all knew me and allowed me certain access, it wasn't because I was given any special privileges by law - it was because they were allowing me to do a BETTER job.

That said - no, the cop shouldn't be pushing people - but, yes, I agree we don't know what this guy's political affliation, orders or motives were.

[cboy4]

73. What was incorrect about what I said? In California, reporters are

granted access to disasters, by law: Penal code section 409.5.

This is a privilege by law.

Yes, generally law enforcement and the media work together because each side can really eff over the other.

So, generally, there is a public information officer/media liaison who works to prevent situations like this. Someone failed in their job.

I can tell you KGO-TV will probably aggressively pursue stories now on how that protest was handled, and it will be a LOSE-LOSE situation for law enforcement.

The cop should have let the reporter to his job....the second law enforcement takes on the reporter trying to cover an event, it turns ugly for the governmental agency involved. There is nothing to be gained. That's why every one should play nice.

As for the "he must be a republican" it was obviously said tongue in cheek, but it's very "Republican'esk" to censor the news.

Just ask FOX.

409.5. (a) Whenever a menace to the public health or safety is
created by a calamity including a flood, storm, fire, earthquake,
explosion, accident, or other disaster, officers of the Department of
the California Highway Patrol, police departments, marshal's office
or sheriff's office, any officer or employee of the Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection designated a peace officer by
subdivision (g) of Section 830.2, any officer or employee of the
Department of Parks and Recreation designated a peace officer by
subdivision (f) of Section 830.2, any officer or employee of the
Department of Fish and Game designated a peace officer under
subdivision (e) of Section 830.2, and any publicly employed full-time
lifeguard or publicly employed full-time marine safety officer while
acting in a supervisory position in the performance of his or her
official duties, may close the area where the menace exists for the
duration thereof by means of ropes, markers, or guards to any and all
persons not authorized by the lifeguard or officer to enter or
remain within the enclosed area. If the calamity creates an
immediate menace to the public health, the local health officer may
close the area where the menace exists pursuant to the conditions set
forth in this section.

(d) Nothing in this section shall prevent a duly authorized
representative of any news service, newspaper, or radio or television
station or network from entering the areas closed pursuant to this
section.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=8367517628+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

[personman]

41. Funny you should bring that up...

"Just doing my job" is practically identical to the "just following orders" defense the Nazis used at Nuremberg. It was rightly rejected.

-personman

Perhaps he was just doing his job being a Nazi? The police are pretty fascistic bunch as it is; authoritarianism is practically a prerequisite.

"The burden of justification is on authority." - Noam Chomsky

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein

[bahrbearian]

39. Well the Bridge is a Terrorist Target .

[cboy4]

74. What does this have to do with allowing a TV news photographer

from covering a news story? :shrug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Exactly

Some of the stuff that pops up here is downright dumb. Thanks for a voice of sanity.

[dogday]

9. What voice of sanity?

The photographer does not need a permit to film.. Remember a Free Press? Regardless if Code PInk had their permits or not, a journalist/photographer does not need one...

[Little Wing]

14. Nice attempt at twisting 'free press'

[swimboy]

19. Journalists should get permission from police to cover news events?

Is that what you're saying? Because I can't apprehend what is progressive about your comment.

[dogday]

24. Nice drive-by post which meant absolutely

nothing... You did not even contribute... Twisting--no, reminding... Yes

[Little Wing]

37. Your definition of 'free press' doesn't apply to this

so you twisted it to suit your own purposes.

[dogday]

38. I twisted nothing, So please do tell

why it does not apply to this and why the police needed to scratch this guy up and break his camera....

[rebel with a cause]

48. OMG!

What is your definition of free press? Please inform us so we will know when it is appropiate to defend it when it is being denied.

[we can do it]

5. Well, Thats It, Continue Defending the Police No Matter What

The press have the right and responsibility to report/photograph the news. They do not have the right to assault anyone. How is doing his job "suppression of a progressive protest in SAN FRANCISCO" by shoving a photographer? If a person is doing their job in a professional, legal manner, why would they care if the press took photos?

:shrug:

[Richardo]

6. And yet they allowed the Chron photog to take the pic of the 'abused' KGO photog

It seems that's the more politically-sensitive picture.

Where's your suppression now? :shrug:

[dogday]

10. Why one photographer and yet not another?

You can't pick and choose..

[Richardo]

11. Exactly. Why would the cops stop the filming of a protest, but not the pic of them 'abusing' the guy

It doesn't make sense.

I say we don't know the full story behind the police's action.

[dogday]

13. To abuse a reporter to such a degree, he would

of had to be filming the actual downing street meeting... I am not buying what was done to this guy, that was totally uncalled for.....

[Richardo]

17. How do you know?

You don't.

Maybe he was trying to get on the bridge, which was closed to all pedestrian traffic at the time.

[dogday]

20. So they beat him up

as opposed to just blocking his entrance?

[Richardo]

22. It says nothing about being 'beat up'

[dogday]

26. What does this statement mean to you

His camera was broken and his face was cut in the incident

And if it happened to you, I guess you would feel you got a massage?

[we can do it]

42. How Many Photographers Can One Man Rough Up At A Time?

Also, maybe he noticed that he was being photographed ASSAULTING the first photographer.

[rebel with a cause]

49. A perhaps better explanation

The first photographer was shooting pictures of the protest close up. The second photographer was smarter, and was shooting from a distance, within a crowd, with a zoom and the police did not notice him shooting the incident. Imagination used on my part, you betcha, but it is a possibility. Since we were not there we do not have the answer to what led up to the police rough handling the man, but it was wrong no matter what. Of course that is unless the photographer attacked the police with his camera. ;-)

[we can do it]

55. That's Pretty Much What I Was Thinking, You Know How Dangerous Cameras

can be.

[we can do it]

44. No Actually, Since We Do Not Know What the First Photographer Was Shooting

[uppityperson]

46. Maybe they were busy assaulting 1 while the next 1 filmed & hadn't gotten to him yet

sort of like saying "no one else has reported a problem with this product so there can't be one" or "you are the first person to report power out so it can't really be out because no one else has reported it". Or even try this: Maybe they did NOT KNOW that this photographer was taking the pictures.

[Richardo]

23. Well, Thats It, Continue Blaming the Police No Matter What

How very 60s of you.

[northzax]

53. legal?

what if the law clearly states that pedestrians are forbidden? and the photog is a pedestrian. seems to me that the photog is breaking the law, so it's not legal right?

and you will notice, of course- that in this picture, the photog's face is not cut, and the camera is whole. And yet, he has his arm and elbow out. seems to me that he was fighting back, no? I mean since all we have is this one instance, I see just as much aggression from the photog as from the cops.

[we can do it]

56. The Press Is Allowed To Photograph News - He Wasn't Going for A Walk with

with his camera, for crissakes. It looks to me like he is trying to keep the police from grabbing his camera.

If a person (READ as COP) is doing their job in a professional, legal manner, why would they care if the press took photos?

[northzax]

57. we have no context, whatesoever

remember. maybe they didn't want publicity for other lawbreaking activities, like how they don't show the people who streak at the superbowl? who knows? fact remains that is is not all that likely that a bridge cop in San Francisco is going to pick a fight with a newscameraman.

Was he wearing a press pass? ID of some sort? there is no station logo on the camera. And yes, in order to gain access across police lines, you need press ID. where is his? they don't know who he is, right?

[we can do it]

62. First Off, Look at the Camera, Its Professional. Where Do You See a Police Line?

If you were going to protest, would you carry a huge camera (with the possibility of it being destroyed?) like that and no sign? It is not up to the police to decide what news is shown. This is not a sporting event, so the streaking comment is irrelevant. You cannot see the other side of the camera, nor if he has a press pass hanging from his belt or in his wallet. A reasonable person would assume this man was a professional.

Early in the standoff, KGO television cameraman Randy Davis was cut on the nose and his camera damaged in a scuffle with a Bridge District police officer. KGO news director Kevin Keeshan called the scuffle an illegal assault by a police officer and said the station intended to file a report with the Highway Patrol.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/01/BAGLINBCD312.DTL

[cboy4]

68. I don't mean this to offend you, but you sound very uneducated when

it comes to constitutional law.

"Maybe they didn't want publicity for other lawbreaking activities..."

Did you really say that? So the cops get to decide what gets to be aired on TV?

Ummm,no, sorry. It doesn't work that way.

And that's a television camera. What do you mean there's no logo on it?

Do you think they sell those things at Best Buy?

I can't believe how naive you sound.

[northzax]

75. no, but they do get to decide

who gets access to restricted property. And the Golden Gate Bridge is closed to pedestrians. Unless, of course, I buy a used digicam off of ebay, then I can call myself a presser, and get access to everything I want, right?

The first amendment, in my ignorant state, is usually interpreted by your average idiotic uneducated supreme court justice (now I may not be a Thurgood Marshall, but I can read what he wrote, or have other people read them to me, in cliff's note version) to say that the government cannot pass a law restricting what the press can say, it can, however, restrict access by the media to places not open to the general public. But hey, I am sure you can cite the supreme court decision saying I am wrong, since I am simply an uneducated hack about constitutional law.

every TV station in the backwoods here in the District of Columbia has their logo on the sides of their cameras. This one doesn't. I think that's odd. and you may not be able to buy them at Best Buy, but a simple google search finds at least 25 places to buy new or used ones within 100 miles of my house. you think they are restricted or something? all you need is cash. piece of cake.

but hey, you obviously know what happened. obviously the racist, redneck pigs were in the wrong, since there is no chance the guy with the camera was wrong, right? who's naive now?

let me know when you find the citation, willya?

[cboy4]

76. Oh boy. First of all, the Golden Gate Bridge is not closed to pedestrians.

There are pedestrian and bicycle lanes.

It was subsequently closed during the "shut down" of the demonstration.

Secondly, in California, the government absolutely CANNOT "restrict access by the media to places not open to the general public."

Nope they can't.

Section 409.5 of the California Penal Code says so:

409.5. (a) Whenever a menace to the public health or safety is
created by a calamity including a flood, storm, fire, earthquake,
explosion, accident, or other disaster, officers of the Department of
the California Highway Patrol, police departments, marshal's office
or sheriff's office, any officer or employee of the Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection designated a peace officer by
subdivision (g) of Section 830.2, any officer or employee of the
Department of Parks and Recreation designated a peace officer by
subdivision (f) of Section 830.2, any officer or employee of the
Department of Fish and Game designated a peace officer under
subdivision (e) of Section 830.2, and any publicly employed full-time
lifeguard or publicly employed full-time marine safety officer while
acting in a supervisory position in the performance of his or her
official duties, may close the area where the menace exists for the
duration thereof by means of ropes, markers, or guards to any and all
persons not authorized by the lifeguard or officer to enter or
remain within the enclosed area. If the calamity creates an
immediate menace to the public health, the local health officer may
close the area where the menace exists pursuant to the conditions set
forth in this section.


(d) Nothing in this section shall prevent a duly authorized
representative of any news service, newspaper, or radio or television
station or network from entering the areas closed pursuant to this
section.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=884013121+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

This is a law.

I'm not sure how things work in your state.

I'm not even sure why television stations needs to place their logos on the sides of their cameras where you live, when the reporter is usually holding a microphone with a cube logo of the station's channel and network affiliation.

But things work differently in California.

As you've learned.

[swimboy]

15. Sorry, man, but any time the police decide to censor journalism we have a problem

If it is an individual acting on his own beliefs it is one kind of problem, if censorship of journalistic coverage of a news event is "standard operating procedure" it does not excuse such action, as you suggest, but it is actually a far worse problem for a free republic.

[Richardo]

21. You don't know that it was 'censorship'

[swimboy]

29. You're right. I only see a cop preventing the filming of a news event.

You seem to know that the officer has unimpeachable reasons for breaking the journalists camera and scratching his face as an approved part of his work. I don't have access to that knowledge either.

[mogster]

34. It is censorship per se

You stop news media from reporting, it is censorship.
You seem to have a rosy red picture of police actions, there's ample evidence that they DO take politics into their jobs.

[uppityperson]

47. If stopping someone from filming is not censorship, what is it, what is censorship?

really. What would you call it? How do you define censorship?

[kdpeters]

71. You don't need a permit to walk across that bridge

Hundreds do it everyday at any time from dawn to dusk. On any given day, at any given time, another bus load of tourists empties onto that bridge in numbers ten-fold more than 12 mourners holding a vigil for fallen soldiers.

It's disappointing that Code Pink did not get to have their protest,

Disappointing is when it's too foggy to see the fireworks July 4th. This is disgraceful.

I understand it had more to do with a lack of the proper permits than with political suppression.,

Sorry. That's bullshit. Made up excuses after the fact. The article linked states "security concerns" and the bridge was completely shut down for everyone. So which is it? Permits or security? Neither. You know it's a bunch of bullshit when they give inconsistent explanations. That's how anyone who wanted to could easily see that the push for war in Iraq was bullshit.

I mean really: suppression of a progressive protest in SAN FRANCISCO?)

You think it can't happen here? You better think again. It can, it does, and this is one of them. Look at those uniforms. That's the highway patrol. Quite a different beast than SFPD and you better believe the CHP most certainly will suppress progressive demonstration -- even in SAN FRANCISCO. It's the brass in Sacramento that have more influence on the departmental culture throughout the state. It's homophobic and entrenched good old boy ways of doing things. They don't care for protesters either. I can tell you they have attempted to infiltrate citizen groups in the past. I regretfully have a lot of experience with the department - most of it awful. We still don't have a good explanation for the bridge closure even though people were arrested. We need to know why they suddenly prevented us from our public commons and so we can determine if they were doing their duty or abusing their authority. If they aren't called to explain, then they don't even need a reason and which would mean we're already living in a police state.

[librechik]

2. wow-is it really the job of the police to stop the press from taking photos?

I can understand their need to remove the protestors, or secure the situation, but stop photos? Isn't that just a PR Propoganda move that actually takes time away from the job at hand?

Are our cops supposed to interfere with first amendment rights as part of their jobs now?

Or is it just an over-enthusiastic officer taking matters into his own hands for personal reasons?

Disgusting.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Maybe the guy was impatiently waiting

to get home and out his normal uniform on.

[Richardo]

12. That's right! All cops are Nazis!

I forgot. Thanks for the reminder... :eyes:

[dogday]

18. Nazis, strong language, why don't we just say

storm troopers or state police....

[dipsydoodle]

25. That's why I used

an SS uniform.

[dipsydoodle]

31. Storm Troopers - SA

were the paramilitary wing of the Nazi party - motto "All opposition must be stamped into the ground" I actually used an SS uniform.

No not all policemen are Nazis - just the ones that overplay the role they're paid to perform as is the case with the guy comimg on heavy with the photographer.

[dogday]

32. I understand that.... with no problem nt

[rebel with a cause]

51. I could be wrong, but I suspect that

you are somehow related to a policemen, or are one. All cops are not nazis any more than all cops are nice guys. There is good and bad in all groups, but when a group has power the bad seems to stand out a lot more and do a lot more harm. It is then up to the good among that group to "police" their own and keep this type of behavior to a minimum. Look at the government, and where the unchecked administration has taken us. If we sit quietly by we are as guilty as those who do the wrong. Just my opinion.:shrug:

[timetoleave]

54. All cops are not Nazis...

but if you are involved in taking away freedom of the press or right to protest, then you may not be any better than the bosses who told you to do it. If the stormtroopers would have said no it may have helped. I know I am new and should probably be quiet on this but saying it is okay to do because it is his job is a bit scary.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

67. you should never be quiet, for quiet's sake.

that's the America we all want to remember, and to keep.

welcome to DU.

:toast:

[theHandpuppet]

8. The women of Code Pink should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

I've never met a more courageous group of women in my life. Wherever a voice cries out for peace and humanity, Code Pink is there.

[dipsydoodle]

36. I'll vote for that

:toast:

[progressoid]

33. Oh My God, our fascist state grows

"after beating him with clubs for several minutes, the supposed photographer was taken away to become slave labor for Kellogg Brown & Root"

[Tsiyu]

40. But in America, we're FREE!

FREE to have our rights pissed on by banty rooster cops

FREE to assemble peacefully as long as nobody can witness our protest

FREE to have a limp press that cheers on the destruction of our Constitution.

ISN'T IT GREAT TO BE FREE AND TO LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY!!!??????!!!!!!!!!

[LynnTheDem]

59. US press freedom ranking; #53

We're #53! We're #53!

And why so many in America are so totally oblivious to fact & reality.

[rebel with a cause]

63. Makes me proud,

don't it you?:sarcasm:

[nini]

61. Was he also trying to get on the bridge with the protestors ..or

was he shooting from afar?


I'm not quite sure what is going on here, but if he was treated the same as the other protestors, then it's not censorship.

If he was standing way back and not trying to get on the bridge with the others - then I would say yes.


The thing that I notice is why wasn't the photographer that took that picture not roughed up and allowed to take a picture of the police 'assualting' this photographer?


This seems like a 'I need more info' situation.



Is foot traffic allowed on that bridge in general? I thought they stopped that after 9/11 - but I'm not sure.

[cboy4]

69. Why wasn't the photographer that took that photo not roughed up?

Easy.

It was a photographer with the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper.

They carry regular sized cameras.

It would be very easy to pull out a camera, snap that shot in two seconds, and put away the camera.

Not so easy for a TV photographer who sticks out like a sore thumb.

[BrightKnight]

64. Threat level PINK - How is wearing a "Wage Peace” tee-shirt a security threat!?

The fact that peace activist must also be free speech activist is appalling.

Law enforcement unnecessarily arrested 10 people and closed the bridge to pedestrian and automotive traffic.

[tbyg52]

65. What about the right of the people peaceably to assemble!

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[EC]

66. I have to wonder how many police forces Blackwater has actually

placed people....They are opening up another facility in Illinois for training people for police forces and the guard...and around here there has been an increase of cop over use of force and more shotings of low crime suspects (one was a kid speeding and jumping out of his car to run, another was a kid the mother was fighting with)...