> The Port Authority's policy is not law. This is a public place, and I can photograph whatever I want.
The rebelliousness seems a little hollow in the light of admission of being cowed. Of course, I'dve had similar thinking.
Is this a known thing, that the Port Authority doesn't want this building photographed? I am unfamiliar with the situation.
This is similar to how journalists feel in light of the NSA scandals. It's not wrong to write about government overreach but if you cross a line they might come after you so it's best not to approach the line, even if that is a private conversation on a phone or via email.
Protestors, photographers, journalists, and people with encrypted data are getting arrested. The first, forth, and fifth amendments are under attack. Cops are progressively getting more violent against nonviolent bystanders. The fear is real.
edit: add "about"
They prohibit photographs on their transit system: http://www.panynj.gov/path/pdf/PATH-Rules-Regulations-12-20-...
The consensus I get from doing some research is that they are overreaching. Anyone can make any policy they want. Anyone can approach anyone else in public and ask them to do whatever they want. Whether or not there is any force of law behind those policies or questions is up to the courts to decide.
A few years ago, someone was going to sue the MTA for their photography policy. Apparently there is a law on the books regarding suing public-benefit corporations (of which the MTA and Port Authority are); if they agree to settle with you, and you choose not to accept the settlement, you are personally liable for their legal fees if the court awards you a settlement that's less than their legal fees. So of course, these policies can't be changed, as an individual can't out-resource the government.
I don't know if it's true or not. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a professional photographer. I'm just a guy who tries to visit the park with a few pieces of film every now and again.
Nice!
Whenever I've seen one of those signs I feel like there should a sibling sign next to that reads, "No reading this sign!".
Am pretty sure there is no rule precisely like that. There might be such a rule, but it applies generally, not just when suing PBCs.
Port Authority photography rules only apply when you are on Port Authority property. That's why they can have those stupid "no photographs" signs in the tunnels and on the bridges.
However, I do like to sit down and consider things before making a decision. Did I want to get arrested? Not really.
I got my photo and I didn't get arrested, so this is almost the best-possible outcome, right?
edit: regulation -> reputation
"The prevailing theory was that the lane closures were retribution against Fort Lee's Mayor Mark Sokolich (D) for failing to endorse Christie in the 2013 gubernatorial election. That motive was alleged by federal prosecutors in May 2015, in charges against Bridget Anne Kelly, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Christie, and Bill Baroni and David Wildstein, both of whom had been Christie-appointed officials at the Port Authority. Wildstein pleaded guilty. The indictment charged that the three conspired to commit fraud by illegally exploiting Port Authority resources for political ends."
I don't have the resources to contend with the Port Authority.
We need a name for this fallacy:
"We are empowered to stop terrorism."
"X can be used for terrorism."
"Therefore we are empowered to stop X."
Some relevant possible values for X: photography, money, cryptography, travel, social media...