Here's a thought to ponder: Arthur Fellig (aka Weegee the Magnificent) was a well-known New York news photographer in the 30's and 40's. His crime scene photography made his fame.

Now: New York City has made it illegal for a person to photograph a crime scene. I learned this tidbit from someone who mentioned that their photo of the WTC rubble had been made illegally.

Where will the next Weegee come from? If it's illegal to do what he did, will we ever see anyone like him again? When a government makes the mere creation of a photograph illegal, doesn't that violate the Constitution's first amendment?

-- Brian C. Miller (brian.c.miller@gte.net), April 17, 2002

Answers

we've already had a weegee that I'm pretty happy with. I'd rather see some thing new and different than somebody just trying to be weegee.

-- doug (doug@ajenda.com), April 18, 2002.

That's scary to me.The world gets smaller and smaller. Gov't agencies like to "sneak thru" little laws and ordinances like these,( In the name of public safety, etc). But really, it's just plain old censorship. Another way to control the general public, and levy fines. This is why gov't watchdog groups have sprang-up like weeds in recent years. Too bad they didn't catch this before hand. b30307

-- Warren Jackson (dubyaj@mindspring.com), April 22, 2002.

Police state versus freedom of the press

I find this hard to believe. It is a basic infringement on "freedom of the press." If photographing crime scenes is indeed illegal in New York, I would expect it to be challenged in short order and for the media to make a big deal about it. Sounds more likely to be in the realm of urban legend.

The person who told you he photographed illegally may have been in a restricted area, or something like that. I just can't accept that we have become that much of a police state.

-- Buck Ward (spectru@newsguy.com), June 03, 2002.