It is hard to be a Black man in America.
Now couple that with being a rap star, Christmas shopping season and a wannabe Paul Blart in your local mall- that’s just the recipe for discrimination.
But they got the right one when they tried to do the Okie-Doke with Gillie da King. Early on Monday morning, Gillie posted an exchange between he and a Cherry Hill Mall security cop. The cop said that the Million Dollaz Worth of Game host was in breach of a homeland security mandate that individuals could not videotape in a public mall.
Gillie asked him to produce the mall’s code of conduct, stating that such a law exists.
Once the security guard provided the code to Gil, it was clear that he was not being completely truthful.
“From our point of view if they take pictures of large areas, they are taking exits, we don’t know what they are taking videos of… ” Mr. Security man says in defense of his harassment.
But Gil was not having it, “Advising because of ‘Homeland Security,’ which you flat out made up.”
Well, according to Mickey H. Osterreicher who serves as Counsel to Hiscock & Barclay, and serves as general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), Gil’s First Amendment Rights may have been violated.
He says to Videomakers.com:
“Where there is public access in such traditional public forums as a sidewalk or a park you are permitted to record anything in plain sight (i.e. buildings, people) because in such places there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. In other areas that are generally open to the public but may be privately owned such as a mall, recording may be restricted either by posted signs or by mall personnel. “
Since, the security guard could not point to a posted sign or assigned mall personnel to tell him that recording in this area was restricted, the King of Philly might have grounds to make a ruckus.
Here is what the law states. According to Osterreicher, the ISE-SAR Criteria Guidance, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, lists photography as a potential criminal or non-criminal activity.
“Taking pictures or videos of facilities, buildings, or infrastructure in a manner that would arouse suspicion in a reasonable person. Examples include taking pictures or video of infrequently used access points, personnel performing security functions (patrols, badge/vehicle checking), security-related equipment (perimeter fencing, security cameras), etc.” The ISE-SAR Criteria Guidance also notes: “These activities are generally First Amendment-protected activities and should not be reported in a SAR or ISE-SAR absent articulable facts and circumstances that support the source agency’s suspicion that the behavior observed is not innocent, but rather reasonably indicative of criminal activity associated with terrorism, including evidence of pre-operational planning related to terrorism. Race, ethnicity, national origin, or religious affiliation should not be considered as factors that create suspicion (although these factors may used as specific suspect descriptions).”
The law is not only confusing but ambiguous. Many law enforcement professionals have erroneously grouping all photography and videography as suspicious- using the fear of a terror attack as a justification of violating someone’s constitutional right to express themself creatively through the art or industry of filming.
Osterreicher further says, “It has also led many officers to stop, question, interfere with and detain those recording on city streets in an unrealistic and expanded view that automatically equates photography with terrorist or criminal surveillance.”
Gill… you did the right thing by calling him out on the bullsh…
