(CNSNews.com) - Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, states the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
But some law enforcement officers in Washington, D.C. threatened members of the press with confiscation of equipment and questioning Friday.
At least two accounts of credentialed members of the news media being ordered not to take photographs or record videotape from public sidewalks in non-secure areas were learned of Friday.
One of those challenged by police was Jason Pierce, a staff writer for CNSNews.com. He was assigned to take still photographs in Washington, D.C. around the U.S. Capitol, the White House, the National Cathedral, and other areas of the city.
While standing on a public street outside the White House security area near Lafayette Park, Pierce asked the police officers if there was a good place to take some pictures of what was going on around the White House, Pierce said.
They wanted to know why I wanted to take pictures, and I explained that I was a member of the press and showed them my credentials, said Pierce, who holds valid credentials issued by the Radio-Television Press Gallery of Congress.
The response of the officer, whom Pierce identified as an employee of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, shocked him.
He told me, 'You're not allowed to use a camera anywhere near the White House, and if we catch anyone using a camera near the White House, we're going to be stopping them and questioning them,' Pierce reported.
Pierce then went to the opposite side of the White House security perimeter, where the response was less prohibitive.
I asked an officer there, who I believe was a Park Police officer, if I could take a picture. He responded, 'Yeah, but you have to do it from right there, and you better do it fast,' according to Pierce.
A Washington, D.C. businesswoman witnessed a similar incident Friday near the Treasury building.
The woman, who asked that her name not be used, was walking toward the Treasury building outside the security perimeter and saw a uniformed law enforcement officer approach a credentialed broadcast television photographer.
The policeman came up to him and asked him what he was doing and why he was doing it, the witness said. She did not hear the camera operator's response and was unable to say which law enforcement agency the officer represented.
Then he told him to take his camera down and put it away, the woman said. According to her, the videographer did not argue with the officer, but proceeded to pack up his equipment, which was clad in a dark blue Porta Brace equipment bag used by many news professionals.
The witness described the officer's tone as not angry, per se, but very forceful. She says the officer's tone of voice and demeanor made her very nervous. I thought it was an uncomfortable situation, which is why I moved on, she said.
I understand there are security considerations in Washington, but there's no excuse for this, said CNSNews.com Executive Editor Scott Hogenson, who was planning a formal complaint with the Metropolitan Police. Like we don't have enough to do these days, now I've got to get on the horn about censorship.
George Getz of the Libertarian Party was disturbed by the reports.
It's understandable that in a time of crisis like this that the police might over-react. he said. (But) anytime the press is restricted from taking a photograph, there ought to be a bona fide national security reason for that.
A spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was more outspoken in his criticism. It certainly seems to me to be another outrageous, paranoid over-reaction to the events of the week, said Arthur Spitzer, legal director for the ACLU of the National Capitol Area.
The first question that should be asked, Spitzer said, is whether these are just low-level officers who are making up this policy out of their own heads in an excess of zeal and paranoia over the current situation.
A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police Department says there's nothing that I'm aware of, that would authorize officers to interfere with a photographer, unless the person had entered a secured area without authorization, or was obstructing traffic.
Sgt. Rob McLean with the U.S. Park Police told CNSNews.com that there are no restrictions on anyone taking pictures as long as the photographer is not breaking any laws merely by their presence.
Obviously we have closed areas that you'd not be able to go into, McLean said, but as far as restricting photographs, no, we are not.
Other law enforcement agencies around Washington responded similarly when asked if they had new policies or orders restricting photography or videography. Absolutely not, said Special Agent Tony Ball of the Secret Service.
Simon Davies, director of Privacy International and a professor at the London School of Economics, was quoted in a story earlier Friday expressing concerns about the possibility of an erosion of civil rights in America in response to Tuesday's tragedies.
The terrorist attacks may result in a general increase of the strength of the state, he said. There could be an argument that virtually any law enforcement or national security measure could now be justified, whereas last week that wasn't the case.
In a CNSNews.com poll conducted Thursday, 66 percent of those who responded said they would not be willing to surrender any of their freedoms, for increased security from terrorists attacks.
The survey included responses from CNSNews.com readers and is not considered scientific.
Absolutely not! insisted the witness who requested that her name be withheld. As Americans, those are the things that our country was founded on and I think that they can insure our safety without violating our rights.
Spitzer was delighted and, actually, pleasantly surprised with the poll results.
Certainly there may be some necessary and legitimate security measures that we'll have to take in this country, he said. We have to be very careful to protect American's essential liberties while we're doing that.