POSTER 7 and PHOTOGRAPHY: The reality, not the blather.

[S.SaulGood]

As often seen in 1A audit videos, a review of poster 7's photographic guidelines will occur. Usually an auditor will direct police to the section and instead of just letting them read the paragraph, attempt to distract them, reading it to them, stopping abruptly after the word "corridors". If you keep reading past this point, it becomes obvious as to why the auditor's effort to distract intensifies at this point because the rest of the paragraph makes it perfectly clear that at any time, IF the auditor(s disrupt the smooth flow of postal business, the postmaster has the authority to restore order by telling them, in no uncertain terms, to get the *advertiser censored* out. And if they refuse, police can and will be called and they will be trespassed. Here it is. Anyone with a basic understanding of the English language should be able to easily interpret it without any confusion whatsoever to the meaning of the guideline.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Photographs for News, Advertising, or Commercial Purposes


Photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings *except where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel* or a federal court order or rule. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local postmaster or installation head.
_______________________________________________________________________________

A USPS postmaster, or an assistant acting as a postmaster, would qualify as "authorized personnel".

 

[S.SaulGood]

Of interest is the wording, "when used for public meetings". The way this is worded can only be correctly interpreted one way. Photography is allowed in the post office foyers, corridors and lobbies ONLY when those designated areas are being used for a public meeting. A public meeting is not the same as meeting the public. And official meetings inside a post office can only be called by officials, public or otherwise.

By the clearly stated language of poster 7, photography is not allowed inside the post office, except to record a public meeting, whether the postmaster or acting postmaster gives their blessing or not.

 

[JJTpa]

"Auditoriums when used for public meetings" is the wording. They're obviously only referring to auditoriums being used for public meetings. Who ever heard of holding a public meeting in an entrance or corridor? "Other photographs" then refers to photography in areas other than those listed.

 

[S.SaulGood]

"Auditoriums when used for public meetings" is the wording. They're obviously only referring to auditoriums being used for public meetings. Who ever heard of holding a public meeting in an entrance or corridor? "Other photographs" then refers to photography in areas other than those listed.

They did that at larger post offices a hundred years ago and before.

So what do you think about the postmaster, by virtue of the following, being able to call a halt to filming in the post office? Curious, because I've already spoken to USPS in Washington DC about it, and it'll be interesting to see if YOUR take on this matches THEIR interpretation, sine I assume that YOU do NOT have authority to make and interpret postal policy as they intended it and they do.

*except where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel* or a federal court order or rule. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local postmaster or installation head."

 

[JJTpa]

A hundred years ago... ok, no comment on that.

If "authorized personnel" included the postmaster or an assistant, as you say, when would a federal court order ever be necessary? To add a limited exception to the Constitutional right, perhaps?

And why would the next sentence clearly spell out needing to ask the local postmaster's permission for photographs taken in other areas besides those listed? Does this imply nobody above the local postmaster is permitted to provide that kind of permission? Of course not. Be reasonable. It means those are the only areas permission is needed for a photographer to access.

Regarding your comment about calling the police and having someone trespassed, unless the Post Office has an agreement called a Memorandum of Understanding set up with the local police, they do not have jurisdiction on federal property. That would be under the purview of the Postal Inspectors.

 

[salex]

Poster seven says: “Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other federal laws or regulations or any state or local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.”

And, per the Operational Readiness Order HQ-ORO-002-2018 Photography and Videotaping Federal Facilities, page 3: (AKA 2018 Homeland security memo) ”the public is allowed to photograph interior building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors and auditoriums from publicly accessible areas.”

So, since the post office is a federal building, and the 2018 DHS memo says interior photography is ok…

 

[TheOneTrueRobb]

Something else not mentioned: Any facility, private or public, has the right to Trespass ANYONE, for any reason, if they feel that the person is not following rules or guidelines, or is being disruptive. The facility decides what "disruptive" is. In the case of a Post Office, it's the Postmaster's call, or, if the Postmaster isn't available, the highest ranking employee.

That's it. It ain't Rocket Surgery. Come into a Post Office, or any public or private establishment, wielding a camera and a rotten attitude, and the cops can come and trespass you. Hopefully Immediately.

Game over, you lose Fraudhole...

 

[Neko]

Poster seven says: “Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other federal laws or regulations or any state or local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.”

And, per the Operational Readiness Order HQ-ORO-002-2018 Photography and Videotaping Federal Facilities, page 3: (AKA 2018 Homeland security memo) ”the public is allowed to photograph interior building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors and auditoriums from publicly accessible areas.”

So, since the post office is a federal building, and the 2018 DHS memo says interior photography is ok…

funny how you missed page 2 which that section falls under.

Except where security regulations, rules,orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property
may take photographs of: c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes.
It's like auditors and their followers are illiterate or deliberately dishonest.

 

[Aaron Bunch]

Something else not mentioned: Any facility, private or public, has the right to Trespass ANYONE, for any reason, if they feel that the person is not following rules or guidelines, or is being disruptive. The facility decides what "disruptive" is. In the case of a Post Office, it's the Postmaster's call, or, if the Postmaster isn't available, the highest ranking employee.

That's it. It ain't Rocket Surgery. Come into a Post Office, or any public or private establishment, wielding a camera and a rotten attitude, and the cops can come and trespass you. Hopefully Immediately.

Game over, you lose Fraudhole...

One big problem with your statement. We call it the United States Constitution. It states that. No law or regulations shall be established. That deprive the public of their rights protected by the constitution. In short this means. It does not matter what regulations/protocols they make. If the regulation/protocols violate the public's constitutional rights. Said regulations/protocols are invalid. This is the bottom line. The public have God given constitutional rights, and no law is allowed to be established that would violate their rights. This includes laws that would restrict ones First Amendment Right. This concept is not hard to understand, and definitely is not as you said. Rocket surgery. Although I believe you meant rocket science.

 

[TheOneTrueRobb]

There is no problem. You have rights as a citizen. Those rights do NOT include disrupting a Government facility. That's when the Trespassing laws kick in.

As for "Rocket Surgery", see someone about your humor impairment...

 

[DaRat]

Of interest is the wording, "when used for public meetings". The way this is worded can only be correctly interpreted one way. Photography is allowed in the post office foyers, corridors and lobbies ONLY when those designated areas are being used for a public meeting. A public meeting is not the same as meeting the public. And official meetings inside a post office can only be called by officials, public or otherwise.

By the clearly stated language of poster 7, photography is not allowed inside the post office, except to record a public meeting, whether the postmaster or acting postmaster gives their blessing or not.

yes corridors etc but says nothing about the sales/counter area. To me, it sounds off limits to film there

Poster seven says: “Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other federal laws or regulations or any state or local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.”

And, per the Operational Readiness Order HQ-ORO-002-2018 Photography and Videotaping Federal Facilities, page 3: (AKA 2018 Homeland security memo) ”the public is allowed to photograph interior building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors and auditoriums from publicly accessible areas.”

So, since the post office is a federal building, and the 2018 DHS memo says interior photography is ok…

Yes but “ poster 7 “ also says “ and with permission of the post master” so yes they can do it but also with permission

 

[TheOneTrueRobb]

They need to toss Poster 7 out, and replace it with something less vague, and obviously far more stringent.

No Recording On Post Office Property.

That's it. Record? Get trespassed. Continue recording? Get arrested.

This isn't tough. P7 was fine before the Frauditing plague reared its nonsensical head. Now, there's Frauditors, and they must be dealt with. Banning recording on PO property deals with it. And this goes double for Town/City Halls, Govt. offices,and of course Police stations.

Frauditors will scream bloody murder, of course. They can blame the idiot in their mirror. If this happens, they brought it on themselves...

 

[iMage]

The idiot frauditors simply ignore the bit of Poster 7 that states an official can stop them. Frauditors are all a bunch of former criminals trying to make a buck on Youtube shouting at teh cops

 

[TheOneTrueRobb]

Post office personnel, and cops, and Govt.workers in general need to be retrained.

Zero Tolerance: Determine that the cretin sticking his/her phone in everyone's face is a Frauditor (usually quite obvious). Give them ONE warning (a useless formality, but necessary). When they pull the Frauditor schtick, call the cops IMMEDIATELY. Try to not engage (granted, not always possible). When the cops arrive, INSIST on the trespass. Do not let the cops try to "reason" with the Frauditor. Do not engage in any worthless "discussion". Trespass. Now. Period. If they don't comply? Arrest. Now. Period.

It ain't, as I'm fond of saying, Rocket Surgery...

 

[DaRat]

As often seen in 1A audit videos, a review of poster 7's photographic guidelines will occur. Usually an auditor will direct police to the section and instead of just letting them read the paragraph, attempt to distract them, reading it to them, stopping abruptly after the word "corridors". If you keep reading past this point, it becomes obvious as to why the auditor's effort to distract intensifies at this point because the rest of the paragraph makes it perfectly clear that at any time, IF the auditor(s disrupt the smooth flow of postal business, the postmaster has the authority to restore order by telling them, in no uncertain terms, to get the *advertiser censored* out. And if they refuse, police can and will be called and they will be trespassed. Here it is. Anyone with a basic understanding of the English language should be able to easily interpret it without any confusion whatsoever to the meaning of the guideline.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Photographs for News, Advertising, or Commercial Purposes


Photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings *except where prohibited by official signs or Security Force personnel or other authorized personnel* or a federal court order or rule. Other photographs may be taken only with the permission of the local postmaster or installation head.
_______________________________________________________________________________

A USPS postmaster, or an assistant acting as a postmaster, would qualify as "authorized personnel".

It does say corridors, etc but it also says “ when used for public meetings” that doesn’t mean , come and film/take pictures at your whim, but “ when there are public meetings” also says any other pictures with permission of the postmaster . So really, they have no right to just walk in and film what they want, because when they do, they disrupt the operation of the post office

 

[Neko]

I keep these notes handy for Frauditors.

This is from Michael Crowell UNC school of government - Areas of expertise included judicial authority and administration, courts and judicial education, constitutional law

Communicating restrictions on use of a public forum — Restrictions on the time, place and manner of First Amendment activity at a public forum may be communicated in any manner that reasonably informs the user of the restriction. The restrictions may be incorporated in published regulations, for example. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 US 288 (1984). The restrictions may be posted on a sign. Leiss v. United States, 364 A2d 803 (DC Ct App 1976). The restrictions may be communicated by a guard (Leiss), by an administrative assistant in charge of the property (Hemmati v. United States, 564 A2d 739 (DC Ct App 1989)), by the officer on duty in charge of the property at the time (State v. Occhino, 572 NW2d 316 (Minn Ct App 1998)), or by some other person with authority over the property.

and this is from another case.
Wilson v. State, 504 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. Ct. App. 2016) (observing that “governmental entities have the same rights as private property owners to control their properties, so long as the entity’s policies are not employed as a subterfuge for illegal discrimination”).

"The State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47, 87 S.Ct. 242, 247, 17 L.Ed.2d 149 (1966); accord, e.g., Perry Education *advertiser censored*'n v. Perry Local Educators' *advertiser censored*'n, 460 U.S. 37, 46, 103 S.Ct. 948, 955, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983); Greenburgh, supra, 453 U.S. at 129, 101 S.Ct. at 2685.

Sheets v. City of Punta Gorda
Case No.: 2:19-cv-484-FtM-38MRM
"Interestingly, the Ordinance likely allows more speech than necessary. For instance, if the Ordinance simply prevented all recording, it would probably be reasonable for the reasons described above and there would be no discretion to analyze."