[UPDATE: The criminal charges against him have just been dropped and the judge issued a court order for the release of his camera equipment. Good news for sure, but the points remain: 1) we need documentary shooters shooting the entire gamut, legal and not. 2) we need public defenders who understand this need and are prepared to help us defend it.]
This is nuts. LA photographer Jonas Lara has been arrested and faces up to a year in prison for ‘aiding and abetting’ two graffiti artists while documenting their work in February. Lara pleaded not guilty, wisely citing it’s within his rights as a photographer to be at the scene documenting the work of the artists. But here’s the rub: his public defender, David Gottesmann, has so far refused to consider his rights as a photographer as part of the defense.
PDN reports, “When he was arrested, Lara was working on a long-term project for which he has documented the work and creative processes of 30 visual artists. Lara met the two graffiti artists at an abandoned building in South Central Los Angeles to photograph the pair as they worked on the illegal mural. The photographer says the officers were understanding when he explained his reason for being at the scene. They told him they needed to process him, and that he would be free to go in the morning. After advising Lara that it would be dangerous to leave his car in the neighborhood, one of the officers even drove Lara’s car to the police station so he could avoid a towing fee.
Once he got to the police station, however, Lara’s situation became much more precarious. The police held Lara for eight hours before telling him he was being charged with felony vandalism. He was held for 26 hours in total…before his wife bailed him out.”
Now call me crazy, but this is pure bullsh*t. I’m not advocating crime, I’m advocating Lara’s rights to document it. His public defender won’t cite his rights as a photographer? Huh? If documenting crime is a crime, then why isn’t every photojournalist who documents drug abuse, war, and violence in prison? The guy is headed for the MFA program at Art Center in Pasadena. His work is legit. We need pictures like these.
In situations like this, where a person’s right to document is being questioned, it’s crucial to have a criminal defense lawyer who understands the nuances of free expression and legal protections. Melbourne criminal defence lawyers, for example, are trained to handle cases where clients face potential charges that may infringe on their rights. A defense attorney experienced in protecting creative professionals can help ensure that artists and journalists are not unjustly prosecuted for doing their work, standing up for the preservation of civil liberties and artistic freedom.
Since his public defender doesn’t see the light (wtf?), Lara needs private council. He’s got a donation page here. Spread the word. And if you’re a photojournalist, please keep shooting.
(via PDN Pulse)
Chase – you probably don’t know what’s happening across the pond in the UK right now (and especially in London.) Have a look at this Facebook group: I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist
The police are using the UK’s anti-terrorism laws to stop photographers anywhere they want. The latest incident was an established architectural photographer who was arrested while photographing a building in the City of London!
Simon
Why is that always the argument? Yes, those are also crimes, but these crimes (graffiti) are not detrimental to anyone else. It’s a crime against buildings (arguably), but really.. nothing even close to resembling rape, murder, or a child molester. C’mon…
Well, it’s fair enough to note that grafitti and rape/murder/child molestation are not equivalent crimes. However, they are both crimes, and the difference in these crimes is (hopefully) reflected in the penalties one suffers for committing them. It is disingenuous to claim that because grafitti is a crime of vandalism and not of violence against another person, it can therefore be excused.
Others have already expressed what I think is a crucial point: if the photographer in question happens upon a crime in commission and photographs it for photojournalistic purposes, that should be protected. If the photographer has arranged a meeting with potential criminals so as to photograph them as the commit a crime, he is an accomplice.
There is no such thing as “it wasn’t much of a crime.” As the old urban legend regarding Winston Churchil goes: He was reportedly a a political function and asked an elegantly dressed woman if she would be willing to sleep with him for a million dollars (or pounds if you prefer). Embarrassed, she acknowledged that she would. He then asked her to sleep with him for dollars. She promptly slapped his face, indignantly saying “Do you take me for a prostitute?” His response: “Madam, we have already established that fact. We are now haggling over the price.”
The degree of the crime does not change the fundamental principle here.
nl
The most useful comment up until now.
Of course, many that write here are photographers so it’s understandable that they would *try* to defend one of their own. But thanks to the whole brouhaha, a person is now free even if he conspired towards a crime. One can say that mr. Lara even advertised the said vandalism. Good game… NOT!
That is what happens when you live in the land of the free.
All of us photographers here in the UK are endeavouring to stand up the the authorities to defend our right to work and photograph in public. Back in January thousands of us, pro and am, gathered in Trafalgar Square in Central London under the banner, I’M A PHOTOGRAPHER, NOT A TERRORIST.
It’s disgraceful that in an open democracy our activities should be so curtailed both here in the UK and Stateside.
Here’s a short film of our “Mass Gathering”.
http://vimeo.com/9129784
So… Last time I checked Heroin was illegal yet TV shows like “Intervention” can roll camera’s 24/7 while capturing the subject shooting up… Maybe I’m missing the charges, but isn’t this the same f’n thing? Go figure.