Local Civil Rule 1.8. Photographs, Radio, Recordings, Television
Unless authorized to do so by an administrative order of each respective Court, no one other than Court officials engaged in the conduct of Court business shall bring any camera, transmitter, receiver, recording device, cellular telephone, computer or other electronic device into any courthouse.
The recommended revised language of Local Civil Rule 1.8, which the Committee understands has been worked out by the respective Courts, recognizes that both Courts have adopted administrative orders dealing with the extent to which cameras, recording devices, and other electronic devices will be permitted to be brought into their respective courthouses. The environs of the courthouses are excluded from the proposed local rule in accordance with the spirit of the settlement agreement so ordered by the Court in Antonio Musumeci v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 10 Civ. 3370 (RJH).
Received this on 2011-07-23 in the mail from my bank:
<bile’s bank> has always been a strong supporter of consumer protection laws. You may have heard about new federal laws that affect the banking industry. One Recently approved law contains a provision that significantly reduces the revenue banks receive from merchants when consumers pay with a debit card. <bile’s bank> has always returned the majority of this revenue to the members in the form of benefits such as free checking accounts, ATM fee refunds and reward programs.
Members helped <bile’s bank> make a touch choice With the significant reduction in revenue, <bile’s bank> had to reevaluate our debit card and checking account benefits. As we carefully considered all options and the financial impact of the provision, we reached out to members for feedback. The large majority of members surveyed valued free checking accounts and ATM fee refunds over debit rewards programs; therefore, we decided to cease debit rewards to maintain the other benefits.
It then goes on to explain what it means in practice.
So thanks. My not for profit bank/insurance company can no longer give me the service it’s customers have come to expect because the government wants to keep me “safe” from the fee’s I voluntarily accept to use the service.
Who will watch the watchers? In a world of ubiquitous, hand-held digital cameras, that’s not an abstract philosophical question. Police everywhere are cracking down on citizens using cameras to capture breaking news and law enforcement in action.
Police cuffed and arrested Musumeci, ultimately issuing him a citation. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, he forced a settlement in which the federal government agreed to issue a memo acknowledging that it is totally legal to film or photograph on federal property.
Although the legal right to film on federal property now seems to be firmly established, many other questions about public photography still remain and place journalists and citizens in harm’s way. Can you record a police encounter? Can you film on city or state property? What are a photographer’s rights in so-called public spaces?
These questions will remain unanswered until a case reaches the Supreme Court, says UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, founder of the popular law blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Until then, it’s up to people to know their rights and test the limits of free speech, even at the risk of harassment and arrest.
Who will watch the watchers? All of us, it turns out, but only if we’re willing to fight for our rights.
Produced by Hawk Jensen and Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Jim Epstein and Jensen. About 7.30 minutes.