The Legal Implications of Blocking Recording Cameras in Public Spaces

In recent years, the debate over personal privacy versus the right to record in public spaces has become increasingly prominent. This issue is especially relevant in the context of the Bane Act, a piece of legislation that addresses the interference with civil rights. Understanding the legal landscape surrounding this matter is crucial, particularly for individuals who frequently engage in recording activities such as videography or photography.

The Bane Act and Civil Rights Protection

The Bane Act, formally known as California Civil Code § 52.1, or the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, is a civil code in California that prohibits interference with an individual's constitutional rights by force or threat of violence. This act offers protection for civil rights that are guaranteed by both state and federal law in the United States. These rights include the right to vote, the freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms, among others.

A lawsuit under the Bane Act is a civil claim against someone who has attempted or managed to interfere with someone's civil rights through acts of coercion, violence, threats, or intimidation. Victims of hate crime violence or other forms of infringement are also covered under this act.

Interfering with Recording Activities

Placing someone's right to record in public spaces into perspective, it is essential to understand the current legal standing. For instance, in the United States, it is generally legal to record someone who does not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." This includes individuals on the street or in town squares, where one can typically capture visuals without issue. However, there are limitations.

When a person deliberately blocks another's view of a recording camera with their body or hand, they also have a right to their own privacy and space. Thus, from a legal standpoint, the person blocking the camera can be seen as equally justified in their actions. If the interference occurs in a public place and no physical force or coercion is used, the law is more neutral in this regard.

However, if the person being obstructed is being obtrusive or obnoxious, or if there is a perceived attempt to intimidate or harass them, the situation can become more contentious. If such behavior is repeated with a demand to be left alone, the obstructionist may be seen as the one at fault.

Real-World Examples and Case Studies

A storied example of this phenomenon involves a picket line where non-union workers protested the replacement of union workers. The local police force, recording the picket line, faced challenges from participants. One individual, armed with a picket sign, decided to deliberately block the camera's view. Initially, the picket line participants found humor in this act, but the police eventually deemed it an obstruction of their duties and issued a warning.

This scenario highlights the complex interplay between individual rights and public order. In the US, while the act of blocking a recording camera is generally not illegal, it can become problematic if it escalates or is perceived as an act of harassment. The use of force or coercion in such instances would be a clear violation of the Bane Act and potentially lead to legal action.

To avoid legal issues, the most advisable approach is to ask for permission before recording someone. Politeness and mutual respect can go a long way in ensuring that recording activities remain above board and legally sound.