Do more research outside of Faux News.

Thanks.

The first amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press

Photography is typically covered under freedom of the press.

Restrictions on photography are legally required to be posted in writing, or they are not legally enforceable.

‘Sensitive Site’ is usually used as a means to pressure those who aren’t aware of their rights into submit to violations thereof.

Your innocent picture could be used to facilitate escape planning by the felons or their cohorts. With everything on the web these days, nothing can be left to chance. Restricting photos of a sensitive site is not encroaching on your freedoms. Other than a scary voice emanating from a loud speaker, did the jailers take any other actions against you? What part of the Constitution does it guarantee freedom from annoyance?

or

But in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.
Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Jean Baptiste Le Roy (1789)

Perhaps I should bore you all with the nature of my photo…

*visible and audible yawn*

My gardening friend and I exchanged “roaming gnomes” by mail, literally. While my roaming gnome (“Wally Wallflower”) was seeing a bombing range and an ostrich farm in New Mexico, my friend’s roaming gnome (“Peaches”) was seeing the best (and worst) that Texas and Louisiana (specifically New Orleans) had to offer.

“Peaches” was supposed to be the innocent target of a “simple misunderstanding” when he happened upon the Texas judicial system. Can you imagine my surprise when he actually *was?*

For both of our countries, these days of excessive authority are frightening and inhibitory. It doesn’t feel like “The Land of the Free” over here, certainly. Nobody seems to be examining whether excessive restriction of innocent people is worth the price.

What was it Ben F said?

The only way this go-round would make sense is if the goofballs were protesting Wal-Mart or some other behemoth that was competing unfairly with local businesses thanks to government action. But no, these stupids are protesting a 4% bump in the marginal rate for people way above their station, while the protestors themselves all got a tax CUT.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeejuts.

I got back in my car, thought about it, and became angry. I got a shot, similar to the one I wanted, on the edge of the property. Someone in the tower was probably watching me through binoculars the whole time, but I wasn’t breaking any law, either.

Those people are used to having absolute say-so in their environs, and it was scary to see how easily they adapted to over-reaching their bounds. They had no real authority over me (considering that state property is not private property), but that didn’t keep them from exerting authority they didn’t have.

Your situation is worse, because, in your situation, the officers would have authority over your actions, so they wouldn’t feel the least bit inhibited in seeing that you had a really bad day, at the least. Hopefully the new law will be tested by journalists, and will be modified or eliminated soon.

For both of our countries, these days of excessive authority are frightening and inhibitory. It doesn’t feel like “The Land of the Free” over here, certainly. Nobody seems to be examining whether excessive restriction of innocent people is worth the price.

From my babysitting days, I can verify that a child-to-adult ratio of 3:1 is enough to constitute courage, and that’s only if the adult has access to Baby Einstein and/or Barney DVDs.