| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Shoot a Florida Farm and become a Felon - no kidding!
Michael J. Treola, Photographer
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 7:38 PM on 02.25.11 |
| ->> What a farg'n monkey. Someone idiot tried to do this hear in Mo. a few years back when I was in school in Kansas. Don't remember what came of it. Yet another case of elected officials pandering to special interests rather than trying to solve actual problems. Pathetic. |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 7:44 PM on 02.25.11 |
| ->> 'Some idiot' sorry |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
|
anywhere | IN | | Posted: 8:16 PM on 02.25.11 |
->> That sort of bill would never get passed in Indiana right now.... of course most of our democrat representatives are hiding out in Illinois as of this moment. Ha.
Maybe hiding out isn't the right term, they're at a Comfort Inn in Urbana. We know where they are. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:25 PM on 02.25.11 |
->> The fastest growing industry in Illinois right now is housing out of state politicians.
I'll make you a deal - you can come photograph the family farm if you take them back.....(I'll even let you take some pictures of the crib if you take some of ours with you!) |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 10:18 PM on 02.25.11 |
| ->> FL needs this bill: "to protect the property rights of farmers and the "intellectual property" involving farm operations." Intellectual property on a farm is a pile of crap. |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
|
anywhere | IN | | Posted: 11:18 PM on 02.25.11 |
->> Mark, I never said I was interested in getting them back. :)
Sam, your suggestion of "intellectual property" brought an idea to mind. I think a generous soul out to take a shovelful of that so called property, put it in a brown paper bag, leave it on the Senator's doorstep, light it.... and run. Maybe take a picture of that. I gave you the funny to balance out the huh. :) |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 11:38 AM on 02.26.11 |
->> "Intellectual property on a farm is a pile of crap."
I think you mean manure?
Regardless of the merits, this is the sort of thing we need to monitor closely as we protect first amendment rights. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:10 PM on 02.26.11 |
| ->> more proof that the majority of politicians in this country are morons. |
|
Jeff Barrie, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 1:03 PM on 02.26.11 |
| ->> Mark how right you are. If someone had a hotel in Illinois they should rename it Politicans Hotel. Provide hookers, and booze and the place would be full. |
|
TD Paulius, Photographer
|
Orland Park | IL | USA | Posted: 1:48 PM on 02.26.11 |
| ->> read the comments for the lilnked article. Thet are indeed funny, "Does this mean we have get model releases from the animals?" etc..... too funny |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 7:36 AM on 02.27.11 |
->> Here's a link to the actual bill...
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/1246/BillText/Filed/HTML
I'll be making some phone calls to Jim Norman's office first thing Monday morning. If you live in the State of Florida I'd ask you to do the same.
His phone numbers are:
Tampa office- (813) 265-6260
Tallahassee Office- (850) 487-5068
Tell his assistants (Dennis, Ben or Melonie) that you want to speak to him personally and that you are requesting a return phone call from HIM.
Be nice, explain your concerns in a professional manner and explain that the part of the bill that you have a problem with isn't Section 1 (where you have to trespass) but that it is Section 2 which, as it is written, would make it a first-degree felony to shoot a photo from even public road or other place where you're legally allowed to be.
I have ZERO problem with Section 1 of the bill as it is written, and I think Section 2 is simply poorly written. I believe Section 2 is written to address employees and other people who are invited onto the farm (and therefor not trespassing)... but the way it's worded it appears to apply to people shooting from the road or from an aircraft or even from their own, adjacent, property.
Also, it couldn't hurt to contact the Florida Attorney Generals Office about this bill (even if you don't live in FL). Here's a link to a form to send them your concern. I'm CERTAIN that if enough SS members send one of these in then it will get the attention of General Bondi.
http://myfloridalegal.com/Contact.nsf/Contact?OpenForm&Section=Civil_Rights
Please, if you have 30 seconds, fill this out (it's only a few text boxes) and be sure to include in the narrative box the that you're talking about FL Senate Bill 1246 introduced by Senator Norman.
Thanks - Blanco |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 10:13 AM on 02.27.11 |
->> Brian,
I would respectively suggest that the citizens of Florida should have a problem with the entire bill - which is very poorly written in its entirety - if not downright absurd.
The very farmers it seeks to protect are included in those that should be objecting - because as written they could be deprived of many important services.
I presume Florida already has trespass laws on the books, therefore I don't see the need for part 1. As written, part 1 states that it is a felony to enter a farm without written consent. If does not tie such entry to part 2 - which is the activity the drafter is trying to control.
Think of all the individuals that come to your door (let alone a commercial agricultural venture) for legitimate purposes, that this would apply to. Meter readers, USPS, FedEx, UPS, propane suppliers, the occasional missionary ...hell, even girl scouts selling cookies and trick or treaters. Now add in feed suppliers, veterinarians,farm workers, mechanics, fertilizer/herbicide appliers, parts deliveries, etc. There is no exemption in this bill for anyone.
There isn't even a blanket exemption for emergency responders. Imagine that 911 call - "yes sir, I understand that you have amputated your arm in a feed auger and are bleeding to death, and the building is on fire, but our records show that we don't have a written consent to enter your agricultural property on file. If you or your authorized representative can put one together and bring it down to the farm gate for us, we'll be right out."
Since part 3 defines a farm as any location which stores a commodity, it will encompass grain elevators and fruit warehouses. So the very farmers which this bill purports to protect will become felons if they fail to obtain written authorizations to enter the property before delivering their own goods. What percentage of the tract of land must be dedicated to one of the stated purposes for this bill to apply is also not defined. Does it apply to your local grocer since they have a percentage of their facility dedicated to the storage of agricultural commodities?
Is Google going to be committing a felony every time it gathers imagery for google earth? Companies specializing in aerial photos of family farms will now be criminals?
If this guy really wants to prohibit the surreptitious recording of activities at such a location, then spend more than 30 seconds drafting legislation which does so. Write it such that it is a felony to enter such locations for the purpose of....
As written however, this bill is so vague that it would seemingly be unenforceable even if the balance of the Florida legislature passed it and the governor signed it into law.
(Standard, I am not an attorney disclaimer.) |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 10:24 AM on 02.27.11 |
->> I agree with Mark. Florida law already includes a statute that makes trespassing a crime (Florida Statutes Section 810.09 which, interestingly enough, makes trespass a misdemeanor unless a firearm is involved, at which point the crime becomes a third degree felony--a far cry from the first degree felony included in the proposed statute). Thus, there's no reason to have a second law for what is essentially the same action, particularly when the penalties are grossly inconsistent (first degree felonies include subject matter like murder, rape, etc.).
The sad thing is that the same people who are wasting time and taxpayer money on this sort of nonsense are the same ones responsible for deciding that it is appropriate to cut spending on trivial items such as education. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 11:47 AM on 02.27.11 |
->> Mark, you said: "Is Google going to be committing a felony every time it gathers imagery for google earth? Companies specializing in aerial photos of family farms will now be criminals?"
I AGREE WITH YOU!!
Mark, I thing you may be misunderstanding... I'm 100% with you that the bill is absurd. I think it's terrible. I only said that the trespass issue doesn't ruffle my feathers.
As far as the trespass issue: Here in the State of Florida we already have a law that makes trespass on a construction site a felony. It doesn't stop emergency vehicles from entering onto the property. Because there are two parts to a crime: The "act" (or omission of an act) and the "intent". Clearly the girls selling cookies and the feed delivery guy and you other examples do not have the criminal intent to commit a crime and therefor it wouldn't fall under "trespass" (even as the law is currently written). Construction sites get mail, deliveries, visitors (and maybe even Thin Mints) without incident every day.
I, for one, NEVER trespass to get a photo and I know that responsible photojournalists also never do... so I don't mind them passing a bill that makes trespass on farms (or any other sensitive property) a felony... I have a BIG problem with them making the act of taking a photo from any vantage point a crime at all... felony, misdemeanor, municipal fine... anything.
But, since I never intend to trespass I don't care if the State senate elevates the charge of trespass for certain properties. I care very much about Section 2... now that's absurd. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 12:21 PM on 02.27.11 |
->> Brian -
810.09 of the Florida compiled statutes has specific provisions for the construction sites that you note AND agricultural sites (2(d) and 2(f)). Both require a very specific sign to be posted. Part 1 of this statute, which defines what constitutes the trespass itself - requires a notice - either by sign or communication, that one cannot be on the property or have been warned to leave.
"(1)(a) A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:
1. As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011;"
The proposed statute has no such qualifications. It simply states that one can not enter with written permission. It also seemingly redefines what constitutes trespass for agricultural facilities beyond those already on the books.
I cannot find any reference to a written consent requirement in any current Florida trespass statute. Rather the language of the statute is as noted above.
The entities I list in my post all have been arguably "authorized, licensed, or invited" upon the property (well maybe not the girl scouts and missionaries.) If the property is not posted to prohibit trespassing, the offender must be ordered off the property.
This is not an issue of intent, it is an issue of statutory construction.
I understand that your primary concern is with the second provision, however the balance of the bill has serious deficiencies beyond just part 2 that should worry the citizens of Florida (IMHO). This bill imposes penalties harsher than any other trespass offense (those against agricultural facilities, horticulture facilities and construction sites already on the books are all class 3 felonies), and has the strictest notice requirement (written authorization being the only provision)of any trespass offense. In fact, it seeks to impose penalties that apparently are harsher than many serious violent crimes against persons. That should be a cause for concern.
Go to bottom of this page - the complete statute is provided.
http://www.miami-criminal-lawyer.net/html/trespass.html
Again, I'm not an attorney. |
|
Tony Donaldson, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 8:16 PM on 02.27.11 |
| ->> Perhaps Illinois should start encouraging out-of-state legislators to stay in Bloomington, which then allows them to be as "near-Normal" as possible. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 9:31 PM on 02.27.11 |
->> Mark, again, I guess I'm just not following you man... it's probably my fault.
I understand the existing laws as they pertain to trespass quite well (I'm former law enforcement officer, and police training officer, in the State of Florida)
I guess I just don't see how the first part of the bill is my fight since I never intend to break an existing law... and therefor don't care if it's classified as a misdemeanor or a life felony.
I see how Section 2 of the bill pertains to photographers... and it's simply unacceptable.
And, like you, I'm certainly no attorney... though I have considered charging my clients for phone calls and "thinking about their case" just like attorneys do. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 9:42 PM on 02.27.11 |
| ->> Oh and Mark, I agree with you 100% that it appears that someone spent a whopping 30 seconds drafting this gem of a bill... it was actually my first thought upon reading it. It kind of suggest that perhaps he knows that this isn't likely to pass... but rather that introducing it makes for good theater for someone who's watching. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 9:47 PM on 02.27.11 |
->> Brian -
I'll leave it at this - there are many people who have been convicted of offenses who did not intend to break a law. The poor construction of this draft would (if enacted) greatly increase the likelihood of that happening in this context. I'm a big believer in plain english. The drafter of a bill which shows such abject lack of thought in its wording should be ashamed to present it to a State legislature - and surely should not be getting a pass from the citizens of their State simply because they do not intend to violate the statute. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent of allowing overly vague, poorly worded statutes to be the norm - thus allowing pernicious prosecutors to interpret them to their own devices. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 10:08 PM on 02.27.11 |
->> I hear what you're saying in your last post Mark, and I agree... I guess I just don't see the tie-in to the whole photo world that's all.
That being said: When I call Sen. Norman's office tomorrow morning, if I get a busy signal... I'll hope it's you on the other line Mark.
Cheers - Blanco |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 7:49 AM on 02.28.11 |
->> Brian:
Perhaps think of the trespass issue this way. There is currently a law that makes trespassing a misdemeanor. It's not a major felony, in part because trespass is a somewhat unique crime which only requires you to intend to be where you are (you don't have to intend to be on someone's property to commit the crime). Now imagine that your neighbor petitions his local legislator to pass a law to make it a major felony--classified the same as rape and murder--for people named Brian to do what would otherwise be a misdemeanor, namely trespassing. Does that still seem reasonable?
Farmers are not entitled any special protection under the law because they don't want the media filming their operations, and because they don't groups like PETA, etc.
Unfortunately, the Florida Tribute article was also not terribly sophisticated in its analysis, particularly of the farmer's comments regarding intellectual property. It's more than a stretch to claim that there's any intellectual property associated with farm operations, particularly if they are publicly visible. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:29 AM on 02.28.11 |
->> Samuel -
I will have to disagree with the notion that there is any intellectual property at a farm - particularly when one goes inside the structures (which is what this bill is really aimed at IMHO. There are processes and specific purpose machines that are patented (and patentable). To claim that these are not intellectual property simply is not true. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:32 AM on 02.28.11 |
->> correction - "isn't any".
I would also note that existing corporate espionage statutes should be sufficient to protect any such intellectual property. |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 10:20 AM on 02.28.11 |
->> Mark:
I'm not suggesting that patentable inventions may not be in use on a farm, simply that there's nothing in the law designed to protect it. To the extent the sponsors of the law want to claim that this law is intended to protect intellectual property, they should--to be intellectually honest--be prepared to explain why the law is not preempted by federal law. The simple fact is that the legislation as proposed is not intended to protect intellectual property any more than a law which criminalizes loitering.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the farmer is developing some patentable invention, the farmer has a relatively small window of time in which to seek a patent application for the invention before the various restrictions in the Patent Act preclude issuance of a patent. Once the time restrictions have been blown, there is no way to obtain patent protection. Similarly, once a patent issues, the ideas in the patent are fully (and in painful detail) disclosed to the public, and thus, no need for a law that prohibits the public from observing the use of the patented invention.
The farmer could also seek to rely upon trade secret law to protect the same ideas, but if those concepts are observable by the public, or if the farmer has not taken steps to ensure the confidentiality of those ideas, trade secret law will not provide any protection, either.
So, as I stated, it is a stretch to suggest that there is intellectual property associated with farm operations which are visible and observable by the public. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 1:32 PM on 02.28.11 |
->> Samuel
Thank you for your clarification. This is another example of where the lack of meaningful detail in this draft leads to multiple interpretations. It is my supposition that the activity that they are trying to "protect" is that occurring out of the public view. Their broadbrushed approach is sweeping up everything inn the process though.
If they want to make it illegal to secretely film or record an activity on private property which is outside of the public view then write a bill that says that. Others have. Additionally use the statutes already on the books and enforce them. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 3:28 PM on 02.28.11 |
| ->> Sen Norman's office just called to say they now recognize the flaw in the language in paragraph 2 and will amend as soon as possible. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 3:41 PM on 02.28.11 |
| ->> They will amend to make it clear that photography from outside the property is protected. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 4:53 PM on 02.28.11 |
->> How nice of them to acknowledge the US Constitution.
Seriously though....congratulations for helping to make a difference Brian. Perhaps next time he will engage his brain before grabbing his pen. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 5:07 PM on 02.28.11 |
| ->> Thanks Mark, but I can't take credit for that at all. I was just one more phone call man. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 5:11 PM on 02.28.11 |
->> I will not be cowed by such an obviously unconstitutional law.
--Mark |
|
D. Ross Cameron, Photographer
|
Oakland | CA | USA | Posted: 5:40 PM on 02.28.11 |
->> The Constitution, I remember it well. My mom purchased me the "non-sniffable" glue so that I could assemble its myriad polystyrene components.
Such a lovely sailing ship you have never seen!
Thanks for the memories!
DRC
P.S.: Perhaps Sen. Norman has been assembling *his* Constitution with the "sniffable" glue... |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 1:09 PM on 06.16.11 |
->> This article says that the Florida bill has failed (as did a similar one in Minnesota), but that a similar bill has been introduced in New York state:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077514,00.html |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|