Filming in public: what are your rights? Sydney Morning Herald

[extraball]

yep, take me to the life was so much better up until say 1990, it's been on a downward spiral ever since. The 80's were awesome, man I miss that decade!

[Bear Dale]

yep, take me to the life was so much better up until say 1990, it's been on a downward spiral ever since. The 80's were awesome, man I miss that decade!

The 70's were awesome as well.......just a bit of a blur



I can't even be in the same room as a TV that has those 'talking head buffoons' on those morning and don't get me started on 'shows' like A Current Affair and Today Tonight.....seriously the masses are getting dumbed down by watching (being spoonfed) the crap that these productions spew forth.

[Lance B]

The 70's were awesome as well.......just a bit of a blur



I can't even be in the same room as a TV that has those 'talking head buffoons' on those morning and don't get me started on 'shows' like A Current Affair and Today Tonight.....seriously the masses are getting dumbed down by watching (being spoonfed) the crap that these productions spew forth.

Everything is being dumbed down, lowest common denomintor for just about everything.

[Mark L]

'tis all well and good to blame the media but ain't they supplying what people want.
Also, maybe the media isn't as influential as some think, dunno. 'spose it depends what we now call the media, though I would think that any given part of the media has less of an audience than the mainstream media used to have.
ACA was crap 25 years ago (does it have fewer viewers now?). I can only assume it's still crap 'cause I stopped watching it 30 years ago and simply don't watch TV any more at all.
blah, ....

[I @ M]

'tis all well and good to blame the media but ain't they supplying what people want.

My view is no, they are simply conditioning people to watch what they offer as a platform to shove advertising down the throats of the gullible masses.

Without advertising, the commercial TV channels would not exist in any shape, form or manner.

simply don't watch TV any more at all.
blah, ....

Same here, at least not for the last ten years. To think that some people even pay money to buy TV channels and then still watch advertising.

[jim]

Same here, at least not for the last ten years. To think that some people even pay money to buy TV channels and then still watch advertising.

Guilty, or at least somewhat. Not long ago I turned on Foxtel for the first time in over 6 months and was appalled to find that not only was there almost as much advertising as programming, but also that they'd apparently turned off my service at some point, and I had to call to get it turned on again.

I'm still paying for it.

[Bear Dale]

and simply don't watch TV any more at all.

Since our last child moved out into their own home 5 years ago, my wife and I haven't watched any aired television at all. The television is only used to watch a movie on DVD.

It's been a truly wonderful experience not to watch TV and something that gave us both back so much time. When we go to someones house and they have the idiot box on, it seems so strange to see ads.

Besides us both giving up smoking 25+ years ago, the next best thing has been giving up the idiot box.

[Lance B]

My view is no, they are simply conditioning people to watch what they offer as a platform to shove advertising down the throats of the gullible masses.

Couldn't agree more. We are being conditioned to accept things nowadays that we wouldn't have dreamed to put up with years ago.

[Ezookiel]

There was once a very interesting training video done for media students, that showed a mock clash between "police" and "protestors" (all just actors) that was filmed from multiple angles,and then a "reporter" added their editing and spin to it. The first made primarily from footage from the protestors side, with the reporter's appropriate commentary, made the police look like legal thugs.

The second footage primarily shot from the police side, with matching commentary, made the protestors look like violent good-for-nothing's. The third version showed that those acting the roles were mostly just having a ball.

It is used to show media students how important their role is in portraying the story.

I have never trusted news stories ever since. This recent story was a living example of the same training video. Amazing how different the story was when you see him trying to kick the police officers, including trying to kick the shins of a FEMALE officer. Such a little hero this guy is.

I have friends that are police. Genuine brutality is incredibly rare. It's not the 60's 70's when a cop would take a troublesome kid out of town give him a bit of a "lesson" and make him walk home. I personally believe that if you pass the attitude test when first approached, your chance of getting rough treatment from a modern cop is almost non-existent.

[Lance B]

There was once a very interesting training video done for media students, that showed a mock clash between "police" and "protestors" (all just actors) that was filmed from multiple angles,and then a "reporter" added their editing and spin to it. The first made primarily from footage from the protestors side, with the reporter's appropriate commentary, made the police look like legal thugs.

The second footage primarily shot from the police side, with matching commentary, made the protestors look like violent good-for-nothing's. The third version showed that those acting the roles were mostly just having a ball.

It is used to show media students how important their role is in portraying the story.

I have never trusted news stories ever since. This recent story was a living example of the same training video. Amazing how different the story was when you see him trying to kick the police officers, including trying to kick the shins of a FEMALE officer. Such a little hero this guy is.

I have friends that are police. Genuine brutality is incredibly rare. It's not the 60's 70's when a cop would take a troublesome kid out of town give him a bit of a "lesson" and make him walk home. I personally believe that if you pass the attitude test when first approached, your chance of getting rough treatment from a modern cop is almost non-existent.

Good post and interesting about the training video.

[ameerat42]

The "60s", the "70s"? What next, Heartbeat? Did they really do that then and, what, not now?

(You know who I)Am.

[ricktas]

The thread title here is "Filming in public: what are your rights? Sydney Morning Herald".

I think perhaps we need something that says 'Filming in public: what are your right and responsibilities'. Everything seems to be about the rights of what people can do, rather than being about the person's responsibility to our society to use those rights in an intelligent manner.

[Ezookiel]

Poking your camera up close in the face of police doing their job doesn't seem to me to fit those responsibilities. But I was brought up when responsibility was linked to rights, you didn't have the rights till you were responsible enough to use them. It seems that that part of the equation has long ago dropped off the equation.
And I'm pretty sure the law regarding having to obey the instructions of a police officer is something along the lines of obeying any lawful instruction of a police officer. I think the Officer did a pretty good job of keeping his cool given the situation at the time. But it does show the importance of knowing your rights (and your responsibilities) if you intend to film or shoot in public, because there is always a chance you'll meet police/security/others who won't know what your rights are, and may want to try to restrict them. How you go about not getting yourself into a "situation" while teaching these people what your rights are, is part of the "responsibility" part of it.

[extraball]

The 70's were awesome as well.......just a bit of a blur



I can't even be in the same room as a TV that has those 'talking head buffoons' on those morning and don't get me started on 'shows' like A Current Affair and Today Tonight.....seriously the masses are getting dumbed down by watching (being spoonfed) the crap that these productions spew forth.

we are not only starting to sound like our parents, but even like our grandparents.

[Bear Dale]

if you intend to film or shoot in public, because there is always a chance you'll meet police/security/others who won't know what your rights are, and may want to try to restrict them. How you go about not getting yourself into a "situation" while teaching these people what your rights are, is part of the "responsibility" part of it.

Thats all ok, but that must be countered by saying that the police have a 'responsibility' to not unlawfully restrict a citizens rights by intimidation.

[Rattus79]

The law states that we can film anyone in a public space provided a "reasonable expectation of privacy is met"

As far as I see it, the Police Officer has an expectation that his face not be revealed and is within his right to say to stop filming. If I was a frontline cop, I'd hate for my likness to be put on national television. I wonder how many unsavoury characters were watching that and have marked his face for next time they see him at coles or woolies?

That said .... Be buggered if I would have stopped filming though!! We live in a world where every person has a video camera in their pocket. Expect to be filmed regardless of what your're doing!

Expect that film to be edited to make you look like a mongrel by the media!

[Bear Dale]

As far as I see it, the Police Officer has an expectation that his face not be revealed and is within his right to say to stop filming.

If a N.S.W Police Officer mistakenly believes that they have or they hold the right to the expectation that his or her face not be revealed and it is within his or her right to say to a citizen to stop filming me or stop photographing me whilst in a public area......they need some remedial refresher courses back at the Goulbourn Police Academy.

[Rattus79]

All they need is for a court to believe that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. that's it!

Could be worse. Could have been a QLD police officer. They would have just smashed the phone. and likley your face as well ....

[Bear Dale]

Could be worse. Could have been a QLD police officer. They would have just smashed the phone. and likley your face as well ....

LOL what about Vic cops....shoot first and DON'T bother about bothersome questions!

[Mark L]

Do Police Officers on duty have any "reasonable expectation of privacy" while carrying out their duty on public land?