Say you live in a neighborhood where there is a power or waste-treatment plant nearby. You notice some toxic nastiness spewing out, so you decide to document said spewage by recording it with photos or video. If lawmakers in New Jersey get their way, you've just committed a crime that could put you in jail for 18 months:
The state Senate Law and Public Safety Committee is expected to discuss a bill today which would make it a crime -- punishable by up to 18 months in jail -- to photograph, videotape or otherwise record for an extended period of time a power generation, waste treatment, public sewage, water treatment, public water, nuclear or flammable liquid storage facility, as well as any airport in the state.
At the very least, it will allow law enforcement officials across the state to detain the individual or confiscate any recorded materials to further their investigation, according to state Sen. Fred Madden, D-4 of Turnersville, who is the bill's sponsor.
Opponents of the bill said it "makes no sense" and is "awful."
Indeed.
(Via BB)
Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things
Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting
Comments
View as Flat
OutdoorsPro Posted 8:04 am
13 May 2006
Still, while we should be wary of anyone suspicious who is documenting these types of plants, common sense should come into play at some point. If you're a local and can offer a decent explanation, there shouldn't be a problem, as long as private property is respected.
This is a problem we've created ourselves. In everyone's rush to avoid any appearance of being "judgmental" (surely the single biggest sin if you consider youreself a liberal), we've abdicated all personal responsibility for what happens in our own neighborhoods. As a result, lawmakers feel they need to do something to fill the gap and come up with silly laws like this.
If i see a plant in my neighborhood doing something fishy and decided to document it, i fully expect that others might wonder what i am doing and investigate. I should be willing to explain, without getting all upset about it, even if it is cops who do the asking. It's called being part of a community.
On the other hand, if i get all upset about it and start acting like my rights have been violated simply because i had to explain myself, especially in this day and age, then i have no one but myself to blame for silly, draconian laws like this.
Permalink
mlrowland Posted 10:52 am
13 May 2006
Certainly New Jersey has a number of toxic-waste sites . . . and now they want to make it illegal to photograph same? And send anyone who dares to try to jail for 18 months? To what end? Preventing the state's citizens from finding out they are there?
Surprise: Most of us who have been reading anything on the environment for the last decade or so already know or, at the least, suspect.
Two things I would like to know from Mr. Schults: (1) Who is sponsoring this bit of nonsense? And (2) Who are his/her major campaign contributors?
This bill sounds like something bought and paid for by those responsible for the waste dumping.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:37 am
14 May 2006
Domestic spying also proceeded immediately in 2001 after the fraudulent inauguration. All individual citizens probed at will, but corporate citizens protected from any scrutiny?
The agenda furthered by the appointment of the lawyers for corporate citizens rights, Roberts and Alito.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 2:36 am
14 May 2006
Look out! It's a media shower!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:47 am
14 May 2006
I have no idea where the four facilities in South Jersey, referred to as mentioned in an official list of top-100 vulnerable targets, are located. Outside that suburban area there are no big population centers down there -- the Atlantic City area has a fair amount of sprawl, but it is not that dense. But all through there are the Pine Barrens, preserving which has been a priority for many environmentalists.
They for their part seem from the article to have lost no time in leaping up in protest of this bill. And my guess is, they are likely to do an effective job suggesting to the people of NJ that monitoring polluters is more in their interests than thinking they can catch terrorists this way.
Permalink
OutdoorsPro Posted 8:07 am
14 May 2006
Or is that argument reserved just for Republicans?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:44 am
14 May 2006
The interests of nationally-elected figures in either party are not the same as those of state-elected and locally-elected figures within the same party. These people need to get elected, by different sets of voters. They will therefore not say the same things.
Is "the culture of corruption" a strictly GOP thing? No, and the Democrats are fools if they think they can make that a major issue in the next election. The industrialist summons the congressman, fans a huge fistful of thousand-dollar bills in his face, and sneers, saying, "See all this, little boy? If you don't vote the way I tell you to vote, all this and more is going into the coffers of your adversary." (That is perhaps a pity, because in fact the Republicans have been prospering hugely since 1994, much more so than Democrats. But Democrats are not pure, unfortunately, and cannot get away with claiming to be so.)
Are the NJ Democrats especially smelly? Hard to say. My feeling is, Yes. But, that only means it is among the front-runners. We should never cease from examining, say, Ohio and Florida. (E.g., an interesting recently-popped-up question: Did Jeb Bush stab Katharine Harris in the back to make himself more presentable for a 2008 run?)
Former Senator Robert Torricelli was no choirboy; and even among non-choirboys, he was a very successful and resourceful non-choirboy indeed, until he got found out. And then the way he retired suddenly from his re-election race, and Lautenberg was coaxed out of retirement to replace him on the ballot just a few weeks before the election, was a real Gorgonzola deal.
The case of the gay governor, James McGreevey, is unique, and not an example of true corruption, even if a wrongly given job was involved. That was rather more an example of Clintonian thoughtlessness. In fact McGreevey may be the one and only person in all this great nation of ours who was corrupted by the "bad influence" of the Lewinsky affair.
Whether Rudy Giuliani, GOP "hopeful," paid much attention to Bill is doubtful. He was no more adroit, really, than Jim, in hiding his affair. And yet it was possible for him to emerge as the heroic defender of Catholic moral values during the "Sensation!" sensation at the Brooklyn Museum of Arts. Amazing. And now, after 9/11, he pretty much can walk on water.
Not that McGreevey was a competent politician, but clearly, homophobia trumps all other political difficulties.
In conclusion: Which is more corrupt, NJ politics, NY politics or DC politics? Try too seriously to answer that question, and you are lucky if your descendants ever find your concrete-bound remains down down down there on the continental shelf. (Or maybe in the Meadowlands, but that is so first-season-Sopranos.)
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:51 pm
14 May 2006
At one time (I am not sure of it's present status), the Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco was home to a ship repair business and a whole bunch of artists.
Everyone there had to sign papers absolving the Navy in case you got really sick from the extremely toxic materials buried all over it. You also had to have photo ids and such to enter.
One of the artists went out one day with his camera and was taking pictures of the part of the base that was reverting back to wildlife, when Navy MP's arrested him. He was eventually let go, but his camera was taken and his film was destroyed.
What were they hiding? Who knows (though I did see a submarine docked outside the window one day)? (And of course without going inside it, I could see nothing of great import) (Ironically, similar submarines are sometimes open to the public on armed forces days.)
Since almost anything is a potential terrorist attack object, maybe we should ban photography in general. Only way to be sure to be really safe. (I'll be under my bed).
patrick
Permalink