This morning’s Guardian carries this story: JK Rowling wins ban on photos of her son.

Published photos, that is, and in the specific case, photos made of the five-year-old back when he was still less than two. The photos of him in a baby buggy were originally found to be inoffensive: a judge wrote of the Rowlings: “the law does not in my judgment (as it stands) allow them to carve out a press-free zone for their children in respect of absolutely everything.”

A later appeal judge did not agree, however, stating: “If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent.” Which seems unusual, as non-famous children and non-famous parents certainly have no such legal expectation.

Yet.

Multiple federal and Memphis-local departments have launched “Operation Sudden Impact,” which seems to have something vaguely to do with terrorism, though the exact identities of the terrorists and their terror victims are not specified.

This TV news link reports that so far “Operation Sudden Impact” has resulted in the issuance of close to 1300 traffic tickets and 332 arrests, including the captures of 142 fugitives.

Richard Pillsbury of the Tennessee Fusion Center, a collaboration between the Department of Safety and the Department of Homeland Security, told a public audience: “You may think a guy is just shooting pictures, but if you report it to us, we’ll send it on to the FBI.”

Shelby County sergeant Larry Allen also warned the public that environmental groups and animal rights groups may harbor terrorists, while public affairs officer Steve Shular opined in a zen-koan-like manner: “We may get information that doesn’t pan out to be true at all, but that one bit of information that someone calls in could make all the difference.”

Related forum.

Related forum thread and previous item.

This amazing bit of legislation from Maine, described in this SeacoastOnline article, describes the new penalties for appearing to be observing fully-clothed children in public. The bill has cleared the state house and is moving now to the state senate.

Update: A PDF of the actual amendment is available on the Maine legislative web site, which shows the exact wording — wording that would not, despite the circumstance cited in the Seacoast Online article, allow police to legally arrest someone for observing fully-clothed children.

Related forum thread.

U.S. military authorities have said a U.N. Security Council mandate allows them to retain custody of a detainee they believe is a security risk even if an Iraqi judicial body has ordered that prisoner freed. The U.N. mandate is due to expire at the end of this year.

Related forum thread.

A police officer does not have the authority to arrest someone for refusing to identify himself when he is not suspected of committing a crime, a federal appeals panel ruled Friday.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis reversed an Arkansas federal judge’s ruling and ordered a new hearing in a Benton County man’s lawsuit challenging his arrest for refusing to show his identification …

…In its ruling Friday, the federal court panel referenced a 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.”

Unless the officer believes a crime has been committed — and as we know, photography and videography are not crimes in any state of the US — then they cannot require ID. They can ask, but cannot require.

As Justice White wrote regarding Terry: “Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way… the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest…”

Related forum thread.

Labour MP Austin Mitchell “has already tabled an Early Day Motion at the Commons which has been signed by 131 MPs, giving it wide cross-party support. Mitchell said he tabled the motion because of the increasing number of occasions in which police and others had tried to stop people taking pictures in public places.”

Mitchell himself was challenged last year when trying to make a photo of a canal near his home.

The contents of the Early Day motion reads:

That this House is concerned to encourage the spread and enjoyment of photography as the most genuine and accessible people’s art; deplores the apparent increase in the number of reported incidents in which the police, police community support officers (PCSOs) or wardens attempt to stop street photography and order the deletion of photographs or the confiscation of cards, cameras or film on various specious ground such as claims that some public buildings are strategic or sensitive, that children and adults can only be photographed with their written permission, that photographs of police and PCSOs are illegal, or that photographs may be used by terrorists; points out that photography in public places and streets is not only enjoyable but perfectly legal; regrets all such efforts to stop, discourage or inhibit amateur photographers taking pictures in public places, many of which are in any case festooned with closed circuit television cameras; and urges the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to agree on a photography code for the information of officers on the ground, setting out the public’s right to photograph public places thus allowing photographers to enjoy their hobby without officious interference or unjustified suspicion.

Related forum thread

This just in from London SE1:

“It would appear the victim, an amateur photographer, who enjoys taking snaps of London street scenes, was taking shots on the escalators when a member of the public took exception to having his photo taken and asked him to delete the photo.

“The photographer told him he could not delete the shot as it was not a digital camera. The man then attempted to grab the camera and punched the victim in the face. The victim suffered cuts and bruising to his face as a result of the incident.”

The suspect appears in the undeleted film-based photo above.

“Being arrested for simply being a witness to police activity was frightening and humiliating. It bothers me to think that police can abuse their authority by arresting innocent witnesses and then not even make standard police reports to document what happened.”

According to the ACLU of Washington in this Seattle Times story, a man who was arrested by downtown Seattle police about one year ago for photographing an arrest on the street was awarded an $8000 settlement, after the ACLU became involved in the case.

Bogdan Mohora snapped a photo of police arresting a man on Seattle’s busy Pike street (just a block away from the Pike Street Market, a popular and picturesque tourist destination), and was walking away before officers James Pitts and David Toner demanded his camera. When Mohora asked what he had done that was wrong, he was arrested and handcuffed. His camera, wallet and satchel were confiscated and he was sent to a local jail cell.

While the police accused him of “disturbing the peace, provoking a riot, or endangering a police officer,” he was never charged with any crime — and the police never even wrote up any paperwork about the incident.

While the police department has said the officers were “disciplined,” they have not been forthcoming on details.

Related forum thread from ncp5.