Re: videotaping of violence NOT outlawed in France

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Date: March 7, 2007 5:56:10 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] videotaping of violence NOT outlawed in France

Does videotaping an incident where the police are beating up a  
demonstrator or a criminal (unnecessarily) amount to "in order to get  
a proof in justice"?   This might be a matter of some concern  
depending on how one must demonstrate intent at the time of taking  
the videotape.   If it were America, I'd suggest taping a label on  
your camera - "all footage being taken by me are intended for use in  
court as proof, should I need the video for that purpose".   Such a  
declaration might not work in France as a statement of (potential)  
intent - especially if I were taking the photos or video as a means  
of spying on the government.  I understand that in France everything  
that is not permitted is forbidden.

David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf () sethf com>
> Date: March 7, 2007 4:28:51 PM EST
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>, ip () v2 listbox com
> Cc: Latanya Sweeney <latanya () LAB privacy cs cmu edu>
> Subject: videotaping of violence NOT outlawed in France
>
> [For IP]
> [Sigh ... This is another wolf! Wolf! WOLF! story, that the
> journosphere tells itself all the time, with the demagogues exploiting
> the paranoid in mutual self-importance.]
>
> http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070306/105141#c579
>
> Wait a minute! by pvdg on Mar 6th, 2007 @ 4:45pm
>
> I am a french journalist and everything I know on this topic
> contradict the story up there.
>
> Here is the agenda of our Conseil constitutionnel (aka Supreme Court):
> http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/divers/actu.htm
>
> I find nothing related to this topic. Looks like they didn't examine
> this law yet.
>
> To my knowledge, the law in question is an attempt to stop an ugly
> phenomenon: "happy slapping":
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping
>
> Not a good idea?
>
> But of course, they had to differenciate the filming of a violent act
> "for the fun" and "in order to get a proof". Not easy…
>
> So they included a sentence saying this law will not apply…
> « lorsque l'enregistrement ou la diffusion résulte de l'exercice
> normal'd’une profession ayant pour objet d'informer le public ou est
> réalisé afin de servir de preuve en justice »
>
> that is: "when the recording or the diffusion results from the normal
> exercise of a profession devoted to inform the public or is carried  
> out
> in order to be used as proof in justice"
>
> Sounds bad? This is all I know for now.
>
> Disclosure: I am not at all a partisan of this government.
>
>
> 50. The law is published by pvdg on Mar 7th, 2007 @ 4:33am
>
> This morning, the law discussed here has been published in our
> "Journal officiel":
>
> http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=INTX0600091L
>
> In fact it's a big package, in which you find a little thing modifying
> an existing law about different kinds of violence (including rape,
> torture…). Here it is:
>
> « Art. 222-33-3. - Est constitutif d'un acte de complicité des
> atteintes volontaires à l'intégrité de la personne prévues par les
> articles 222-1 à 222-14-1 et 222-23 à 222-31 et est puni des peines
> prévues par ces articles le fait d'enregistrer sciemment, par quelque
> moyen que ce soit, sur tout support que ce soit, des images relatives
> à la commission de ces infractions.
>
> « Le fait de diffuser l'enregistrement de telles images est puni de
> cinq ans d'emprisonnement et de 75 000 EUR d'amende.
>
> « Le présent article n'est pas applicable lorsque l'enregistrement ou
> la diffusion résulte de l'exercice normal d'une profession ayant pour
> objet d'informer le public ou est réalisé afin de servir de preuve en
> justice.  »
>
> It says:
>
> 1/ that whoever knowingly records images of a violence is an
> accomplice and will be punished as such.
>
> 2/ that whoever broadcast this record will be punished (5 years,
> 75,000 €)
>
> 3/ as I said earlier, this law does not apply when the recording or
> the diffusion results from the normal exercise of a profession devoted
> to inform the public or is carried out in order to be used as proof in
> justice.
>
> So, may be this law could have been better conceived. It is evident
> hat the basic idea is to tell the bad guys: "if you are going to rape
> a poor girl in order to take picturees or a video and show them to
> other bad guys, the rapists and their accomplices, INCLUDING the
> photographer could go to jail. He will say: "I didn't touch her" and
> the judge will anwer: "but you took pictures".
>
> Whoever, passing by, takes pictures "in order to be used as proof in
> justice" will be considered as a responsible citizen.
>
> Whoever, passing by, takes pictures in "the normal exercise of a
> profession devoted to inform the public", will be considered as a
> journalist.
>
> Oh, and what about the netizen who takes pictures of a rape and put
> them on YouTube? I don't see that there is a "right" to broadcast that
> kind of humiliating images of people.
>
> Oh, and what about Rodney King? I thought, BTW, that this happened  
> in LA.
> And alerting the public about violence perpetrated by cops is  
> definitely
> another story. And our law says exactly that recording and  
> publishing is
> OK when it is "in order to be used as proof in justice". Which is what
> happened in this case. AND: how could George Holliday, who filmed the
> scene, be considered an "acomplice" of the perpetrators of the  
> violence?
>
> About the "Conseil constitutionnel": what I understand now is that our
> "supreme court" in fact examined the whole package on March 3, but  
> whas
> never asked to look at this particular part of it. And this  
> juridiction
> is not supposed to decide by itself to examine every bit of the law.
>
> One last word: we have a lot of political parties and organisations of
> all sizes. I didn't heard a word about this law from any of them. The
> exception is Odebi, a small group defending "Internet et Libertés /
> Presse Libre d’Origine Non Kontrolée" ("Free press from uncontroled
> origin"), which answered a couple of US journalists. In my opinion,
> they fooled these journalists by not telling them about the other
> provision of the law about filming "in order to be used as proof in
> justice" and abusively using the exemple of Rodney King. To my
> knowledge, George Holliday was not an amateur journalist who filmes
> the scene to make a good post on his blog or upload it to YouTube. He
> was acting as a full fledged citizen who is in position to record a
> proof of a crime and does it. They don't say what other idea they have
> to curb the "happy slapping" epidemy.
>
>
> --
> Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer   http://sethf.com
> Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
> Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com