NYC FTP: Police & Press

  • Posted on: 3 May 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>The only explicitly anarchist march called for Mayday in New York was the Wildcat March that left from Sara D. Roosevelt Park in the Lower East Side. While it didn't include the same smashing seen in Seattle, Portland, and Oakland, it was the biggest bloc seen in New York since the RNC in 2004. Upwards of 300 people showed up and immediately took the streets after a violent confrontation with the hundreds of police intent on stopping us. Despite a slew of errors that were made both before and during the march, we still kept the streets for 45 minutes—no small accomplishment given the heavy-handed police presence brought about by the widely-circulated NYPD SHIELD Counter-Terrorism memo that detailed the importance of stopping the Wildcat March from happening.

The militancy of the march wasn't in the smashing (or lack thereof), but instead in the confrontations with the media.</td><td><img title="More Militancy doesn't equal more awesome. That said, every camera is a prison sentence waiting to happen, every wielder a jailer." src=""></td><...
At least six arrests were made as the march tried to leave the park. Although a few de-arrests were successfully executed, the photographers that formed a line between the rest of the march and the front lines impeded the ability for either further de-arrests or a coordinated retreat. Comrades that were nearly pulled away from the pigs were lost as a direct result of the media's interference. Concerned only with getting a decent photograph, their presence not only prevented the possibility of further de-arrests, but also put those in the front lines in potential legal danger by photographing close ups of their faces after they were unmasked by the pigs.

Photographers were continually confronted throughout the demo. These vultures not only put people at very serious legal risk by shooting their faces, but physically interfered with the march's movement and the capacity for people, masked or not, to act. Most telling, however, was the fact that photographers in the midst of the bloc explicitly stated their intent to de-mask participants. This is indicative of their function in identifying those engaged in direct struggle – a role, whether sanctioned or not, that is imperative for police repression to be successful.

One photographer, who has yet to be identified, was confronted by a masked young woman. She told him to “get his fucking camera out of [her] face”. After repeating this several times, she pushed his camera away, and he promptly sucker punched her in the face. When she lunged for him, she was pulled back and restrained by another participant in the bloc who insisted it “wasn't worth it”. While the individual that kept her from attacking her assailant surely had good intentions, he was sorely mistaken. We MUST attack those that both put us in immediate physical and legal danger and serve the same function as the police.

Demonstrative of this, only one block later, another photographer – Jeremy Sparig with Metro – was confronted about taking pictures within the bloc; when he refused to move outside of the bloc, he and a masked individual traded blows, which ended in two other masked assailants promptly retrieving their comrade whilst attacking and putting down the photographer. A number of cameras were nearly seized, and a few lenses were spray painted or paint bombed.

Such actions taken towards photographers demonstrate our intent to be neither incapacitated by the media, nor represented by an apparatus which we despise. Aggressively confronting photographers is an element shared by most of the major blocs which acted on Mayday, which is indicative of a clear desire to refuse the traditional, liberally-oriented paradigm of pandering to the media. While the bloc in NYC did not reach the level of physical destruction demonstrated in numerous other cities, its aggressive response towards those infiltrators from the media actualized an increase in militancy unprecedented within the context of recent demonstrations in the city. For anyone who is not acting in order to acquire social capital or to grace the cover of the Post, it must be made unequivocally clear: journalists are fucking enemies.

To our enemies: if we won't hesitate to directly confront hundreds of cops and to destroy property, what makes you think we hold the lens of your camera to be sacred? You want to preserve your four thousand dollar camera to watch us break everything else? We are not doing this for you, and this is not a game. You clearly do not understand that there is no exception. We feel nothing but contempt for you cowardly spectators.

You'd better watch your necks next time.


the “did you know that a photographer's camera could pay your rent?” collective
The initial confrontation with the police. The media is everywhere.
The man in the army-green button down in the bottom right corner of this
photo attacked one of our female comrades. If you recognize him, make
his name known.



and replace it with what? Simp



Burn it to the ground? Does that mean my grandmother's 106 year old house in Brooklyn, with all its pictures and memorablia? Does it include the day care centers, the food stamp offices, and the hospitals and clinics? Whoever made this stupid comment needs to go back to grade school.

yes, especially those places.



You're the one who's a child if you think that all this infrastructure is necessary (not to mention healthy or humane) to take care of the sick, the hungry, the young, or the old. Have you ever even seen a picture of the woods? If you have, you've probably seen the best hospital, grocery store, and playground EVER.

PS. If someone would have burned my school to the ground, everyone there would have rejoiced like it was the friggin second coming.

The woods is totally the best hospital.

"Hand me the defibrillators! Oh, we're in the woods? Never mind, I guess he'll just have to die. But at least anarchy, right?"

Have you ever even seen a picture of the woods? If you have, you've probably seen the best internet news comment thread EVER.

This is literally retarded. If I was on a special needs bus, I would be in a smarter environment than the post I'm replying to.

almost positive that the dude in the green is Ryan Devereaux from the guardian/democracy now. that sucks, he writes good shit. wouldn't have thought he'd pull that crap, guess all vultures all the same.

Yup. Check his twitt feed, he admits the pic is him. Bet Amy would be sad to know he punches women.

it's not about whether he punches woman or men or whoever the fuck. and he may be a nice guy. and he may write decent shit. dude is getting paaaaid and to get paid you got to get the good coverage and pics. you think amy goodman isn't fulfilling a role for moneys? fuck no. i don't take it personal. i don't have a problem with a cameraguy punching us when we push him. he's doing what he's got to do but we've still got to push all these people out of our spaces for our own safety. we need to start having flyers at the getgo that make clear they're risking a beatdown unles x, y, z.

'we need to start having flyers at the getgo that make clear they're risking a beatdown unles x, y, z.'

^^ This ^^

Often times they know what they are doing, but pretty frequently reporters and other camera-happy folks don't actually understand the full implications of filming the bloc.

I know it sounds unbelievably dumb, but they see riot porn on youtube with @s commenting on it people often assume that we want to be filmed because we are trying to gain attention. There's been pretty ugly confrontations with some people who aren't really our enemies because they don't understand this contradictory relationship. Flyers explaining that shit before actions would definitely help.

they were passing them out in Barcelona at the last general strike according to this crimethinc article:

somebody should write a general flier usable everywhere for every demo about not filming people committing crimes unless you want to be treated like a snitch. and have something about cowardly spectators who'd rather maintain their class privileges and jobs by reporting than fight back against this system that is imprisoning us all. or whatever. please!

Using the word 'snitch', is a good move too. It makes the issue clear for people who wanna be fence-sitters but don't want to be actively supporting the cops. Often times the people standing around with cameras are on our side but are just too cowardly to help, so they tell themselves that filming it is actually helping.

I confronted a few camera goons on Tuesday for getting in the way and being accomplices to the police state. I also often started yelling "cameras down!" when shit would get hot. Not many people seem to get it yet, though. We definitely need to spread the word and educate people more.

Their main defense is that they're documenting the day/movement/brutality/whatever. Tell them" "history will be our document."


For the record, it wasn't Ryan Devereaux who punched anybody. He's not even a photographer.

Funny how it's always people from The Guardian or Democracy Now and never people from Fox or the New York Post who are targeted by "anarchists," isn't it?

Funny how it's always sympathetic if sometimes clumsy people from the scene and never frat boys or rapists that are targeted by anarcho-slaves, isn't it?

You haven't the foggiest clue about how history is written, do you?

By academics seeking tenure and a sweet retirement?

"history will be our document.
pepper spray is what it will recount."

Ha ha, hey btw why is it that we don't carry pepper spray more often for use on cops and peace police? Is it just the weapons charges we would rack up if we get arrested? Or just that we aint that hard yet?

That would be felony assault on cop + possible some weapons charge. Plus, pepper spray really isn't that bad, like, it's not totally debilitating. Probably not worth using.

You obviously have never had a shot of cop pepper spray directly into your eyes. It is extremely painful and long-lasting. But you are right: it is a bad tactic, "not worth using," because it is only adding violence to violence. In a country as violent as this one has been and still is, non-violent reform is revolutionary.


Lawl? You don't get no gold star on yer grave for not fighting back when a cop punches you in the face.

Use pepper spray on cops and you'd better not get caught or arrested, because the felony charges will be the least of your worries if you survive after having your skull fractured by police batons, and you're still able to see after the cops open your eyes and spray pepper spray in them and rub on it to blind you. Fight back, and it's war, and you'd damn well better win, or else you're going to die or be crippled. Don't think the cops are restrained by laws or any of that other nonsense.

Don't really see how it would work 'cause of the riot visors....

If you don't want to be recognised committing a crime why don't you just cover your face like a normal person would? It's not rocket science.

So y'all want to set rules for others (journalists) to respect and follow? Interesting.

Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules", it means that anarchists decide the rules amongst themselves by consensus or common agreement and if other want to join them, the others will either willingly or nonwillingly abide by those rules. Here, the rule is "no cameras". None of the black bloc have cameras, and they asked the people with the cameras to put them down if they were going to be in the middle of the bloc or taking pics of the bloc. The photographers refused, and they suffered the consequences.

I love the photos of the bloc suffering consequences. I used to be on the side of the protesters, but your post makes me sympathize with the cops.

I hope to see more police brutality photos in the future - especially ones involving the so-called "black bloc".

do you know how many photographers are NOT getting paid? Many these days shoot "on spec" which means if it is used, they get paid and since there are so many shooting these events, the majority do not get a dime. There are also MANY on "your side" and most are part of the 99% so what is wrong with you people for wanting to beat them up? If you sit down and speak with them, you will see. But, as journalists, they cannot chant along with you-it just isn't allowed (code of ethics)
To beat them up, spray paint their lenses-WTF is wrong with you people, with us? This is why the majority out there are hating the OWS crowd

Can we please stop using the 99% rhetoric? It's meaningless. No, the millionares and the multi-millionares at the top 10% give just as much of a shit about you as the 1% does. Society is deeply divided on classist lines.... the middle "managerial" class don't care much about the suffering of the poor, and dutifully obey their corporate masters in order to survive.

Also, cops are part of the 99% too....

I used to always say I'm the other 1%, the one at the bottom that no one gives a shit about.

you didn't even respond to the original argument. you're so brainwashed it's pathetic.

If you believe that Amy Goodman does "Democracy Now!" for money, you are way out in outer space, fellow. Some of these immature comments make me sick. If journalists are you enemy, does that include the late I.F. Stone, who was the epitome of a good journalist? Or Ed Murrow? You probably don't even know who these people were, much less anything about their work. You act like a bunch of kids who finally can say "fuck" without being slapped. Calling the cops "pigs" is merely a way of de-personalizing your foes; which is exactly what they do to you, when they call you vandals. You lower yourselves to their level, and you needlessly provoke them to become more violent, hurting everyone. Cops are, you might be surprised to learn, human beings, not pigs. But, if you actually won some sort of "revolution," the first thing you would do would be to hire cops, because nobody is going to want to follow your rules either. And you will probably hire people who already know how to be cops: the cops themselves. Read up, and stop thinking that you are the hero of the world. Your "anarchism" is infantile, your tactics are stupid, and exactly what the cops call it: vandalism. In these times, non-violent reform is revolutionary. Think about it.


Mainstream media owned by corporate machines = surveillance culture, twisting situation in order to bolster profits. That must be smashed.

As for the indy guys... you really shouldn't film the bloc. It's out of respect to the bloc that you don't film the bloc, since a common policy for the bloc is no-filming. If you're an indy journalist who believes in the cause of the bloc, you may be actively hurting your comrades when you film because the police might use yer footage to identify suspects...

Most of us will ask you nicely first. Maybe twice. But if you cannot respect our consensus then you might as well be one of them... and our tools make no distinction between camera carried by indy guy or corporate employee.

If the cops are people why don't they act like it?

She made the first move - if she didn't want to be hit, maybe she shouldn't have.

Well, he did only punch someone after they attacked him. I mean, that's pretty fair. Woman, man... If you assault someone, you get hit.

It doesn't surprise me that he is punching people, even women. Amy Goodman and Democracy Now are liberal hypocrites, like chris hedges, who preach pacifism and denounce any form of self-defense or property damage by the people as "violence". Then they run stories about how nice and caring the NYPD are. Democracy Now spends nearly as much time as NPR on elections and party politics, as if they are somehow critical to our liberation. Democracy Now's name is even a co-opted and watered down version of the anarchist ideal and rallying cry "Freedom Now". I'm sure the CIA appreciates their counter-revolutionary propaganda.

The original post is both timely and important, and highlights a very serious issue in NYC (and I'm sure many other places as well). Those of us in NYC really need to talk about this shit and figure out how to deal with the asshats who end(ed) up being as much responsible for our friends' arrests as the pigs themselves.

But thank you, commenter, for supplementing this piece with your incredibly irresponsible idiocy. Yes, it does seem that you have correctly identified "the dude in green." And yes, it is nothing new to anyone with half a brain that the press and the pigs are most often cut from the same cloth. So congrats for pointing out the obvious.

But this is an accusation that carries with it a great deal of weight, and I am almost 100% certain that you are dead wrong. So unless you know something that the rest of us don't know, please either a) call someone and help us out with the clusterfuck that you have created, b) apologize, and/or c) go and fuck yourself and your idiot accusations.

Jesus Fucking Christ.


pepper spray the journalists! then they'll stay back.

As in this guy literally fucking Christ? Actually I would like to see that.

ummm yeah DN is opportunistic liberals

It was definitely not Ryan Devereaux (who is the person in the picture). He's not a photographer, did not have a camera that day, and indeed has specifically denied that it was him. Also, not all journalists for bourgeois press are vultures. Some are workers who are less interested in a sensationalized story. Not all students, or trust fund babies, or dumpster divers, or whoever are vultures. And some militants, by the way, are also journalists and vice versa. There is plenty of overlap. So lay off spreading photos and names until you have something confirmed. And I can definitely confirm that the photog who hit the comrade was not Ryan D.

Agreed. I've never seen Ryan reporting with a camera. And he's taken a shitload of beatings from cops just to make sure he can document protesters getting beaten, so lay off of him. He's as good as they get.

lots of bb pics from wildcat on his twitter acct....

Meaning they were taken from a phone. A working photographer wouldn't be tweeting pictures while covering a march.

But we just want to hate on him so damn bad...

The picture is him, but I just talked to him, he says he was not involved with the altercation. I treat all accounts with equal skepticism and here is why I'm inclined to believe him. Ryan Devereaux is not a photographer and is not pictured here with a camera. Let's get our stories straight before we call a hit on someone.

Otherwise agree with nearly everything in the article.

this is really well written and makes great points in bringing up how media fulfills the role of policing and interference in the street.

Thank you for a little insight into what happened in nyc on mayday.

I love riot porn but I hate everything. (That is not a joke.)

gotta get the pre-march fapp in

I believe your very revealing comment. You hate everything. So why are you screwing around in a movement designed to build a more positive and loving world? I advise you to stop trying to be an activist, and to seek psychiartric help to rid yourself of that crippling hatred. Hate is fear, you know.

>the “did you know that a photographer's camera could pay your rent?” collective

If you want to snatch a camera and those pesky neck and hand straps are in your way implement one of these:

Seat belt strap cutter:
Seat belt strap cutter w/ integrated WINDOW SMASHER:

They are designed to be "safe" as in you cannot cut yourself with it if you tried. They are quite easy to use. I like the Gerber model for its wide feed throat and integrated WINDOW SMASHER. (although I would recommend wearing nitrile coated gloves palm side on the knuckles if you attempt a smash).

3rd world hooligans are known to take a razor blade to the bottom of touristas' backpacks, spilling the contents to the sidewalk, snatching what they can, and running. This tactic could be useful in neutralizing/robbing vultures.

Are you familiar with the knit cotton gardeners type glove that is coated on the outside, on what is intended to be the palm side, with nitrile? The nitrile doesn't extend to the inside of the glove (check this yourself by turning it inside out). One must take care in handling the gloves, especially when ditching them, but they are the thing to wear to prevent oneself from being cut when hulkin out.

Nitrile coated gloves are usually green. One could wear a size larger black knit glove (with some grip on the palm side for ease of manipulating tools) over it to blend into the bloc and prevent finger prints when donning/ditching. A wipe down with alcohol will wipe out finger prints. One might wipe down the nitrile part of the glove, put them on, put on the black knit glove over it, and then take off both pairs of gloves taking care to leave the nitrile coated pair inside the black gloves. No more worry about fingerprints left on the nitrile. No more worry about getting cut.

you can still get good latent prints off the inside especially if you sweat. If you wear heavy cotton or nylon gloves with fleece on the inside, then no fingerprints will be recoverable - but that's not the evidence that will be used against you - more likely it's the video of you or pics taken of you in the act - and then post-arrest pics and video - just match the two and you've got a positive ID, good enough to convict you.

you don't need to smash the camera or take it, just get the SD card out of it - there's a little door on the side of the camera, open it, push down on the SD card, it comes up, snatch it out, and fold it in half or break it. No more pics. If they have spares in their bag, take them, too. Video cams use SD cards as well, so the same thing applies.

Use a cigarette lighter to melt the plastic on the card, this should pop the chip inside and destroy the pics/video

and you can smash the camera to bits, but if the memory chip survives, the pics/video are still on it...

If you wanna take photos and someone wants to snatch your camera because they're a thieving asshole that basically works for the system instead of against it, the best thing you do is use one of these:

yall sound like a bunch of paternalistic RCP heads pandering to that "but he hit a WOMAN!" garbage.


yeah, this "he hit a FEMALE" thing and the "more militancy = more good" thing are my only complaints with the article.

Excellent statement.

-- Guy Rebord

PS. Some of those apparent photographers were in fact undercovers.

If a protest happens in the woods and no one sees it, did it actually happen?

so the press is the enemy too now?
why not just declare war on kittens or sunshine next, otherwise it's hard to see how you could be more marginalized

Taking a clear stance against kittens and sunshine would attract more support than opposition to journalists.

For a group that supposedly prides itself it not caring what others think, this comment makes anarchists sound awfully thin-skinned. Have fun at Starbucks afterward...

will do, thanks! and we'll spit in your latte when you snidely order it while tweeting about the people!


the press has been our enemy for pretty much ever. in most other countries they've realized this since at least the 70's if not earlier.

Also maybe you haven't heard of this thing called Mayday, and this thing called a general strike. If you're at the march working, you're scabbing.

worse than a scab in the case of reporters though, obviously

sacred cows yield sour milk.

the first group of arrests, before the march had left the park, would not have happened (or the number of arrestees would have been much smaller) had the press not been in the way. the press literally moved in so that the people at the front could neither back up to get away from cops, nor could people reach them to try to dearrest them.

from the conversations ive had with people on this issue since may day, it seems that the general feeling is that press is welcome to stand on the outside of the march only as a deterrent to police brutality, but inside any march they're just in the way physically, and invading privacy by possibly exposing the identities of people who clearly don't want their identities exposed.

so yeah, if someone's presence directly contributes to our arrests, and that person is making money off of the pictures they get as a result, then yeah theyre the enemy too...

Not that this reassigns their smash category by one iota, but an non-uniformed pig with a press pass and a video camera inside the bloc/in between the bloc and arresting cops is just about the best thing going for policing these events. They can just passively resist/impede the bloc when strategic, gather info, and all the other journotards are liable to herdthink right along with them. If things get hairy enough, the UC camera man will go all apeshit and the journotards in solidarity may go apeshit too.

Did anyone else notice that at least some non-uniformed police in NYC on May 1st had yellow armbands on their right biceps?

The color of the day.

2 UC's I saw on that march. One with the yellow armband and his partner with a green trucker hat. I wouldn't place too
Much importance on the armbands or their color because the pigs will find some other way to ID each other.
I know the UC's were providing intel to the white shirts. They were still looking for specific individuals when we left Wash. Sq. on our way to Union Sq.

>One with the yellow armband and his partner with a green trucker hat.

Was the one with the yellow armband en bloc? It's interesting that the partner had a green trucker hat. Sounds like legal observer to me.

Errr, rather it sounds like they were attempting to look like a legal observer.

You might mean the guy in the green John Deere trucker hat. Not bright florescent NLG hat.

Yup, not neon. Didn't see the logo on the front, can't confirm if it was John Deere,
but the front was white-ish

Was the NYPD with the yellow arm band en bloc?

I did not notice yellow armband or his partner until some peeps dragged a bunch of barricades across the street. A few minutes after that I saw trucker hat and armband try to snatch some guy.

it was definitely a john deere hat, not that it makes a huge difference, just to clarify. this guy might as well have been in uniform he was such an obvious UC

LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LOOK AT THIS FUCKING LIBERAL!!! Only liberals believe in free speech or freedom of the press. Even American conservatives and other shades of fascist have enough common sense to blatantly reject those "freedoms".

lern2chomsky, liberal:

Peruse those links and you tell me you don't think those bastards are the enemy.

> For anyone who is not acting in order to acquire social capital or to grace the cover of the Post, it must be made unequivocally clear: journalists are fucking enemies.

Obviously if you want to be on the front page or make fucking friends, the media is great for you. You sound like a careerist piece of shit. Police and press are cut from the same cloth.

To be clear, the above was in response to the dweeb who thinks we shouldn't alienate the media.

Agree with this 100% It needs to be a priority to get cameras out of the fucking way when we're on the streets.

That goes for all the regular people wandering around with cameras phones and tablets just as much as the paid journalists, too. Don't get me wrong I do love watching riot porn afterward, but when more than half the people on the streets are just filming, it's fucking annoying. Fuckers need to put that shit away and pick up some rocks, they're just in the way otherwise.

Do you know how fucking fucked up it is to be getting arrested and see that the only "comrades" coming near you are just holding cameras?

The only "comrades" coming near you are holding cameras? So while the people you thought were your comrades do nothing, photographers document your possibly wrongful arrest and you hate them. Got it.

Besides the scumbags from the MSM, at least two people from the right-wing Citizens United ( were around for at least the beginning of the Wild Cat march, snapping pictures of anyone they could, including people that were trying to mask-up. No matter what people think of the media or their presence, right-wing shitheads need to be removed from the crowd. (This group also worked with known snitch Brandon Darby)

Why is that guy still alive? Is there not at least one person in the states who can make this their pet project?

Let me seriously and genuinely add my perspective, as a photographer.

The New York Post is as far from, say, the Guardian as you can get. It is a simple and unsophisticated thing to portray everyone with a camera as being the same. Stealing a camera for your rent? I can't pay MY rent this month because I've given up my life to documenting police violence and spending all my free time in the streets. I risk arrest and physical assault by the NYPD when I document their treatment of protestors. I give a shit that people are treated like hell, and beaten and arrested for standing up for their rights. This is what I am doing with my life, and no one will stop me. Not the NYPD, and not someone who is fully masked up and trying to intimidate me. Incidentally, I have zero interest in unmasking anyone on a march, and neither does any other photographer I know. Yes, people get paid for photographing and reporting on news...what do you get paid for?

The man you are referring to was physically assaulted by that woman first, which is why he hit back. I don't blame him. I would have done the same thing.

Lastly, this is a living contradiction: I can't get over the idea of people who think of themselves as anarchists thinking they have the right to tell anyone else what they should do. I've mentioned it elsewhere on this forum, and I'll say it again: anarchism is not the repression of information. And it is hypocritical of anyone who thinks of themself as one to believe it to be their duty to control another's movements.

>I can't get over the idea of people who think of themselves as anarchists thinking they have the right to tell anyone else what they should do.

This isn't a matter of "should" - it's not a question of moral behavior or some shit. This is essentially on the same level as attacking a cop or a corporate storefront, or preventing nationalists/fascists from having a platform for propaganda and recruitment. Allowing press photographers (who will assuredly not remove identifying details from their material) to capture images of illegal action directly endangers the participants of said actions, and needs to stop. This is not about "repression of information", this is about protecting peoples' safety.

And if all of our actions were based around the complete consent of every person involved in or affected by said actions, we would literally never do anything ever. That is not the basis of anarchism in any way.

--- At the same time, is it really going to be advantageous to go out of our way to attack journalists? What about ordinary bystanders with cameras (including ones on their phones)?

"--- At the same time, is it really going to be advantageous to go out of our way to attack journalists? What about ordinary bystanders with cameras (including ones on their phones)?"

read the article from Barcelona. it talks about it.

It's all evidence, and it can be used against you. If it goes up on youtube, which most of the cameraphone stuff does, then it's fair game, either to make probable cause for an arrest, future intel gathering for targeted arrests, or at trial.

Nikon lenses are easily detached from the camera, there's a round button on the left side, press that, twist the lens off to the left, and give it a toss. Canon lenses have a catch/release and a screw mount. If no one catches it, too bad. Learn how to take DSLR lenses off cameras - cameras without lenses are worthless.

As for documentation of police brutality, police video and still frames are discoverable evidence in a civil lawsuit, and press photos generally are not, so let the police do the picture and video behind their lines.

a coat of Vaseline on the lens will not harm the lens but it will make focussing impossible and is nearly impossible to take off without lots of alcohol and lens paper...

but get the memory chips out whatever you do, that's where the pics and video are stored

"And if all of our actions were based around the complete consent of every person involved in or affected by said actions, we would literally never do anything ever."

The Photographers

I could not possibly give less of a shit about photographers who put people in severe danger for the sake of a paycheck.

As a photographer, neither could I. But that describes very few photographers

Not all photographers are the moneygrubbers that you're making them out to be. If the photographers cared that much about money they'd be shooting commercial work or something that actually has money in it. Photojournalism is by no means a lucrative endeavor. Some of us actually care about documenting history believe it or not.

If a cop brutalizes one of you and no one is there to shoot it or write about it, it might as well not have happened. And even if someone is there to write about it but you've scared the photographers off with your thuggish disregard for photogs sympathetic to your cause then the public will say TL;DR pics or gtfo.

"If a cop brutalizes one of you and no one is there to shoot it or write about it, it might as well not have happened."

Do you have ANY idea how fucking offensive this is? It might as well not have happened? Fuck you. The people that are brutalized and imprisoned know that it fucking happened. Their support groups know that it happened. There are political prisoners in this country serving long fucking sentences, and your suggestion that unless the media is there, it doesn't register anywhere is fucking disgusting. You DO NOT legitimize suffering. We are not invisible and we do not need you to deem us legitimate.

So let me get this straight - you wish to prevent fascists from having a platform for propaganda, but yet you use their tactics on innocent press?

Well, okay then! I'm sold on this movement!

"Standing up for their rights"? "anarchists thinking they have the right"? Kthxbai liberal. Go cry about our intolerance to Democracy Now.

Exactly. This is circular logic. You are trying to act as if you can grant ME rights.

You're acting as if you take at face value the categories and discourses that the state uses to legitimize its perpetuation. Dumbass.

You're getting overly wordy here- it's pretty simple. I'm not talking about the state or thinking about the state or its categorization when it's two people in the street, one trying to physically force another to stop doing something.

I think it's reasonable to physically force someone to stop doing "something" when that "something" could lead to the arrest and imprisonment of you or a friend or an ally.

Do you see how things make sense when you stop talking in abstractions and actually comprehend, y'know, reality?

That "something" could also lead to identifications of, investigations of, and dismissals of cops.

Yeah. If you point your camera at the fucking cops and not the black bloc. That's the only point that's being argued here.

Many cameras have been pointed at cops. When the sides clash there is overlap. Twisting off a lens does nobody any good. You risk turning a photographer that may very well have been on your side against you.

It's only in specific situations that you would ask someone to stop filming. If they refuse: they are already against you, at least their evidence is.

Specific situations? The writing above says you guys have "nothing but contempt" for us "cowardly spectators"

the writing doesn't speak for all of "us guys" or in all situations. you're being deliberately stupid (unless you're really that stupid).

honestly, if the state cracks down on you cowardly spectators, we'll probably come out swinging in those demos. but when photographers are directly putting me and people around me in danger of imprisonment, they will get about 1 warning before losing the camera.

>This is what I am doing with my life, and no one will stop me.

Okay, that's cool! Nothing will stop someone from smashing your camera to ensure that they (or their friends) do not wind up in prison. Just so you know.

Wait, do you mean that having your camera pushed away after being repeatedly asked not to photograph someone is being "physically assaulted"?

Or do you mean to contradict the original story? Were you an eye witness? Do you think the photographer was the man in the photo? Just curious. I suppose it's ridiculous to ask this stuff on an anonymous comment thread.

Sorry dude but the Guardian and the Post are basically the same, they're corporations that will collaborate with the police and state, distract and mystify people, exploit people's good intentions to "document police violence" etc. Sure the Guardian will have more sympathetic/objective articles overall but its whole worldview is obviously bourgeois liberal, not anti-system in the least. I think anarchists need to emphasize more this aspect. yeah professional photographers get in the way at demos and are stupidly passive non-participants, but more important they serve masters who are most certainly not on our side.

If you really think photographing police brutality is your political calling in life (kind of stupid if you ask me , but ok), get a blog, or post shit on indymedia or here on anarchistnews or some other really radical, independent outlet. Don't give me some bullshit about how you get to be a radical and take photos for money at the same time. yeah we almost all have jobs but we don't sanctimoniously pretend we're freedom fighters when we're working for The Man.

PS. just ask yourself when was the last time the Guardian printed an article sympathetic to attacking banks, rioting, defending demos from police aggression etc.? Oh you mean they never have? Some articles from Tariq Ali denouncing capitalism don't count. Liberal collaborationist media are not on our side. If you really have radical politics you'll leave your camera at home for the demo, or put your photos on a blog. If you don't have radical politics don't fucking come to the anarchist demo, it's called "anarchist" for a reason. You don't get to be the one on the sidelines "documenting" things, this is a struggle, not a documentary or an income source.

Again, you have no idea what I do with my photos. How would anyone differentiate between photographers when they see them? You don't know who blogs them and who sells them to newspapers. So some people just attack indiscriminately.

If the argument (not sure if this is yours in particular, however) is that photographers automatically endanger protestors by essentially identifying them, how would a photo on a blog be any different than one in a newspaper? And just on a side note here, I have no illusions that my identity or anyone else's, anything I or anyone else takes part in is a secret to the cops, government, or anyone else who cares to find out about it.

Lastly, I "don't get to"...? Yes I fucking do.

"I have no illusions that my identity or anyone else's, anything I or anyone else takes part in is a secret to the cops, government, or anyone else who cares to find out about it."

Do you seriously think that a photo of someone vandalizing or even just attending an anarchist march could get them in trouble with police or their employer? How about if they're an undocumented immigrant, or have prior legal convictions?

You're just talking bullshit now, or really have absolutely no clue about how these things work.

Anyway if you posted photos on a radical blog or something you'd obviously make sure to obscure faces. That's one reason it's safer. And again, there's a big difference between an independent media outlet and a collaborationist new source that's run by and for the oppressors.

erm, "seriously not think .. ."

"Anyway if you posted photos on a radical blog or something you'd obviously make sure to obscure faces. That's one reason it's safer. And again, there's a big difference between an independent media outlet and a collaborationist new source that's run by and for the oppressors."

That's the point. Maybe the photographer whose lens you just stole, whose card you just broke, whose face you just punched was planning to post a photo on a radical blog with obscured faces.

No, because again, no one indiscriminately attacks people with cameras. I've never seen such a thing in all the demos I've been to. Photographers are asked to stop, get out of the way, whatever. Usually they don't listen, argue, spout bullshit about their "rights" or something. And they're still usually left alone!

Someone photographing for their personal radical blog would obviously stop if someone said they wanted to remain anonymous.

If you continue, you're just a douchebag and the anarchists in New York are getting fed up with this bullshit.

Also, it's a lie that people "attack indiscriminately". For the most part photographers in NYC have been left completely in peace, unfortunately. Sometimes they're asked not to photograph, especially if they're obviously pros. If you're asked not to photograph and then keep doing it, yeah, you're going to get your camera smashed. This is the warning right here. For most people that's common sense, someone engaged in political struggle that could get them in legal trouble, they ask you to not photograph, you don't. You continue, you're just being a fucking asshole. Don't flatter yourself that you're "spreading information" or "being transparent" or "exercising your First Amendment rights" or something.

Hahaha, wow, you're one of those paranoid wingnuts who thinks that the government can see you at every moment of every day, huh?

Pro-tip, dipshit: they're actually not as competent as you think they are. They depend heavily on information garnered from imperfect means, such as security cameras (which is why Greek anarchists smash the fuck out of them), social media (which is why shit needs to stay off Twitter and blogs), and professional media (which is why journalists who don't keep their cameras way the fuck away from illegal activity are endangering people).

The illusion that the state is all-knowing and all-powerful is dangerous and paralyzing and it's important to recognize that our enemies are human beings, limited by manpower and (in)competency and funding and technology and public opinion and, occasionally, laws.

fuckin too right,,,AND until the fuckin advent of DNA fuckin screening most fuckin information, evidence and fuckin prosecution was the result of some fuckin snitchin scum,,,AND now they are about fuckin 50/50 but I dont waste time crunching fuckin numbers, but its up around that figure, how else could the fuckin incompetent as you say gov legals fuckin bust all them poor fuckin prisoners.,.,8ball

I was physically assaulted. The paint that was meant for my camera went into my eye. Before the more idiotic of you out there get very excited, it did not for one minute stop me from photographing, nor damage my camera.

The person you are referring to is not Ryan Devereux, who is in the photo. The guy who hit the woman was hit first.

I am trying to carry on a rational conversation here because I am genuinely interested in representing my viewpoint and discussing these ideas with people who are serious about doing the same- not just spewing unintelligent vitriol despite how furious some of us here are about all of this.

So you think what I do is stupid. Well, I think what do is stupid. And you've made a lot of assumptions about me. I never claimed to be a radical and I never said I made any money from what I do.

Oh, you're even weirder than I thought. You go to political demonstrations and take photos of people who don't want you to, putting them in physical and legal danger, but you're not a professional?

Look my friend it seems like you have good intentions but you've gotta reconsider. At a radical street demo you're either a sympathizer or with the cops, or at best in the way. I guess you're some liberal who thinks you're "exercising your rights" or something stupid like that. Ask yourself: why do you want to "exercise your rights" in this particular way? I have a "right" to do a lot of things, but out of sanity, respect for myself and others etc., I don't. Do you think you're preventing police brutality? (you're not). Or do you get a thrill from it?

When you've figured out why you have this need to photograph anarchist demos when you're not an anarchist yourself and people don't want to be photographed by you, let me know. I'm genuinely curious what motivates some one like you.

The altercation you're referring to is not the one written about here. Not surprising, but there were multiple incidents with piece of shit journalists and photographers that use this bullshit defense of documenting police brutality to put people in legal danger. (Has it occurred to any of you that maybe instead of documenting brutality you should get the fuck out of the way so we can help our comrades?)

And if you hadn't been in the bloc with your camera you wouldn't have been spray painted. Duh and/or hello.

If you can't accept the basic premise that taking photographs of people engaging in illegal activity is endangering to the people engaging in illegal activity (which is a 100% factual premise that requires no explanation), then you're an idiot.

If you can accept that and yet persist in photographing them anyways, you're a dangerous asshole who might put somebody in prison.

Either way, it's clear that it's in everyone's best interest - INCLUDING YOUR OWN - that you stay the fuck away from law-breaking political actions.

It is being physically assaulted. People have a right to free expression and that includes photographing in public places. If you don't like it, don't be in public - or hide your face like others do. If you think someone photographing you gives you the right to start assaulting people then you are a moron and you are a tool OF the system, not a tool destroying it.

Fuck it, you're just a tool.

What do I get paid for? Not putting people in fucking legal danger, that's for sure. You profit off of documenting direct action that could get people arrested, fired, deported...

tl;dr you're a scumbag

Ok fair enough, but what is your solution? Or do you not see it as a problem that the vast majority of people who participate in many of these events are actually non-participants who act as passive spectators and actively get in the way of people trying to take actions?

I trust that you don't want people's identities to be uncovered as a result of your footage, but are you denying that this routinely happens? I'm not trying to minimize the complexities, I've filmed protests too in the past and yeah I would be pretty pissed if I got attacked over it, but if it means the difference between someone's being free and having their life fucked up by the state... I mean do you see the problem here? It's not something that people are just making up because they want to hate you, it's a real issue which some people are being unfortunately reductionist about.

There needs to be some sort of discourse about this and we need to figure out how to actually deal with it. How many people need to got to jail before people such as yourself are willing to concede that maybe sometimes it wouldn't kill to turn your camera off or take some sort of precaution to protect these folks if you care about their resistance so much.

P.S. ok after reading your comments about the first amendment I take back the friendly and conciliatory tone:


You fucking liberal snitch.

wow good thing there are spineless fucking middle class assholes like you around to photograph us as we are ground to dust by the fucking police state. and make money off of it!

i'm sure the jews being shoved into gas chambers would also have really appreciated you taking photographs while it happened.

spectatorship is being a traitor when you see oppression occurring. plain and simple.

give up your FUCKING CLASS PRIVILEGE and fucking fight back with us or be our enemy. plain and simple.

Good comment, but really, you can't "give up" class privilege. Class suicide is bullshit. You can be an ally, a comrade, and a solid, decent friend, but if you have class privilege, you have class privilege.

not really. i would agree with that statement if we were talking about white privilege, but race and class are not the same thing.

if someone is born poor and gets super rich, do they have class privilege or not?

if someone is born super rich and is now homeless, do they have class privilege or not?

I just feel like if you are from a relatively well-off family, you have to fuck up pretty hard to not be able to get back into that scene. Maybe if your whole family died, or you did something so horrible (in their opinion) that you were completely disowned.

Also, there are the subtle differences between class as measurable wealth, and class as relationship to the means of production. Like the difference between coming from a UAW/USW/etc. family and being theoretically "blue-collar," but having a family with a $80,000+ yearly income, and coming from a college-educated family of professionals or business owners with lower income, but theoretically "bourgeois" background. The life experiences, culture, and level of precarity you grew up in influence how you live life and perceive events. I feel like Orwell's "Road to Wigan Pier" explains this well. Then again, that was the 1930's, in a racially homogenous area, and in Britain, where class status is generally more obvious and more often taken into account.

That said, I am prepared to concede the point. I was way too hard-and-fast with the definition and dismissal. I also feel like taking this kind of identity shit too seriously leads to really fucked problems. I'd rather just decide whether people are comrades based on what I've seen them do and say, rather than their family/class background.

If you want to do good, put your camera down and join us with your fists against the state. Anything else is bullshit.

As for these accusations of hipocrisy, you don't seem to have a very good grasp on what social interaction means, much less anarchy. Your "right" to take pictures is not granted by G-d or the C-nstitution or the C-ps or any other holy authority. It only goes as far as the community around you allows it to go. If we who surround you when you're taking pictures don't like it, we will stop you. That stopping will be as hard as you want it to be. Of course, you're free to go somewhere else and take pictures, but if there's people around you there and they don't like it, they can stop you too.

This is as true now as it ever will be in any future anarchist utopia. These are aspects of social interaction that do not change. No law or authority or theory can change them.

fellow photographer---also pushed around by cops, camera wrecked--certainly does not cover my rent...freedom of expression is vitally supported and sustained by freedom of representation....see how the cops would act towards you in ANY action, wildcat or otherwise---if no one was there to witness and document abuses---it's simply niave to think your will(idealism or anger) would contain or stop police brutality---you want to attack a FREE PRESS in this country? What kind of abusive,rights-restrictive state do you put in it's place? Hilter also restricted photographs--imprisoned photographers and artists that captured and revealed the truth of worsening conditions---Bloomberg has repeatedly attempted to block photographers from taking street action---you all are including yourself w/questionable would be helpful to rationally inform responsible photographers of your concerns and maybe ask us about some of our own risks and reasons for caring about anything you do. What the source of your own aspirations? In this fight for fairness we cannot forget to be human....the consensus should be to eliminate abuse---not perpetuate it against the innocent & supportive...otherwise YOU just create ANOTHER bad state that abuses it's citizens--what kind of Comrad is that?

>implying anarchists want to create any kind of "state", ever
>implying people aren't capable of fighting off the police without the presence of journalists
>implying that saying "journalists shouldn't film illegal actions because it could send someone to prison" is the same as the censorship laws of Nazi Germany

Either you're WILDLY ignorant and misinformed or you're an amazing troll.

Remember when debated about the LTV, species-being and fucking coma patients? And then like the article disappeared? Good times.

*we debated

It's late.

Putting on a mask no more gives you the authority to cancel the First Amendment than having a badge and gun does.

I'd call the anonymous dweeb who wrote this piece of shit article a fascist. But in reality he's no more a fascist than a 14 year old jerking off with a copy of Playboy is Hugh Hefner.

The First Amendment doesn't exist.

You have useless opinions, because you actually base your moral righteousness on a piece of paper that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

Also, nobody really gives a shit about being "granted authority" to do things, since that's a fucking insane concept, too. The simple fact is that photographing people who are committing illegal actions is incredibly dangerous to those people, and it needs to stop, and nobody really gives a shit about these imaginary concepts that say otherwise.

The First Amendment exists to the extent that people are willing to defend it.

Personally, I think that wherever the "Black Bloc" shows up, we probably need a "First Amendment Block."

As long as people like the little thug who wrote this article threaten freedom of the press, then picking up a camera becomes a political act.

My grandfather fought the Nazis. My father's generation fought segregation. Maybe it's time for ours to fight both the NYPD and the Black Bloc.

Let's assume for a second that your grandfather was a member of the French Resistance, although it's more likely that you meant he was a member of the Allied armed forces.

If some journalist happened to take a photo of your grandfather putting up anti-Nazi propaganda, and then published it in a Nazi newspaper for the simple sake of free access to information (said photo including a number of identifying features that might lead to the Nazis arresting and imprisoning or executing your grandfather), would you or would you not have a problem with that journalist?

Oh good lord.
The black bloc are common street thugs who like to dress up criminal activity in some sort of political bullshit to imagine themselves as freedom fighters. It's not any different than the mafia thinking they're some "honourable" organization. They just like to play beavis and butthead and break shit, and impose their will on the people vis a vis their violence. Fuck you all you stupid little criminalists. You're so fucking useless and do nothing but hurt the movements you supposedly support. You're common street criminals nothing more. Quit romanticizing it.

Hahaha, way to completely dodge the post you're replying to and resort to repeating "criminal" over and over and over. Clearly you have a moral and intellectual high ground, here.

Hey, someone finally figured us out. We're actually EXACTLY like the mafia. It's all part of our master plan to profit from breaking windows.

Step 1. commit property destruction
Step 2. advocate a radical and very marginal political ideology
Step 3. ?????
Step 4. Profit!

Works every time.

I know that your anger is totally just from jealousy over how we are rolling in bathtubs full of money and wiping our asses with $100 bills when we aren't going out to riot, but hey what can I say? Join the dark side.

This is completely unjustified. Being a snitch obviously sucks, but accusing people of things without actual evidence is nearly as low-- and there's no anarchism in being a dick. Sorry.

Anyone who has spent serious time at occupy related actions would know that Ryan doesn't carry a camera and would have a hard time believing he punched anyone. I know and saw him that day. STOP ALREADY.

I saw him too. SAW HIM PUNCH A WEMOON!

Yes. This is a hit piece against Ryan hidden in an article about photography at Black Bloc events. It's creepy as hell. The coward who wrote this piece needs to sign his name to it. Then he needs to provide some substantive proof that Ryan committed assault. If he can't, he needs to STFU. He's no better than a Teabagger wagging his dick in the comments section of the daily newspaper.

I am Ryan Devereaux, and I support this article.

Happy now?

Totally. Let's go drinking sometime dude.

Supporters of the Black Bloc often whine that "property destruction isn't violence."

It appears that the line is pretty thin.

Cutting the straps of a photojournalists camera in the middle of a hectic march, pepper spraying people, shoving a heavy Nikon up into someone's eye, is that "property destruction" or is it violence?

Singling out one particular journalist with an unsubstantiated charge and calling for violence against him is worse.

Property destruction isn't violence.

But we fight the police, too, and I think it's generally admitted that that is "violent", although considering what the police stand for and do, it seems more a matter of defense and survival and finally hitting back at someone who has been beating and torturing and imprisoning and killing your friends for years and years.

If journalists directly contribute to somebody's imprisonment, then they're shitty journalists - they're not just documenting events, they're playing an active role in what takes place. If someone asks a journalist to not film someone or something because it might involve severe repercussions for somebody, then the journalist ought to do the decent thing and step back. If they don't, then we need to fucking defend ourselves.

I really don't give a shit about your job or your completely arbitrary dedication to "free information" (no matter how many people suffer the consequences of you collecting information useful to the police) - I give a shit about the possibility of people winding up in prison because some asshole wouldn't turn their camera in the other direction.

Ok, what about helping send people to jail with your evidence? Any violence in helping the state repress our friends? You have not even acknowledged the issue we are talking about once, it's actually kind of impress how you dodge the question over and over:

Are you trying to get us arrested or not?

If you are willing to send me to prison, why shouldn't I be willing to send you to the hospital? Give me one good answer that doesn't have anything to do with the bill of rights.

I'm fine with that as long as you admit you're just criminals and have no political motive at all.

The fact that you're repeatedly claiming that the black bloc has no political motive is a staggering display of ignorance. Say whatever you want about the tactics or the rhetoric - but if you ignore the fact that the black bloc is a tactic primarily used by anarchists, a coherent political grouping with more than a century of theory and practice behind it, then you are a colossal idiot and not worth anyone's time.

"I'm fine with that"

Then wtf are you whining about? 'Mean anarchists beat on me when I try to get them arrested...' You're lucky we stop there bud.

several people politely asked journalists to stay out of the bloc and take pictures from the side, and many journalists in response were shoving cameras in peoples faces. you really are incredibly stupid if you think people who fight the police and destroy property will have a problem fighting your or breaking your stupid camera.

and if you don't see a qualitative difference between a state apparatus of control preventing the flow of information (your stupid first amendment is supposed to stop this, though obviously it doesn't) and people defending themselves from documentary evidence of their actions, you are even dumber than I thought.

The media are going to be around no matter what you do to them and I think in general around the world, beating on the media is hated way more then hitting cops. I'm not moralizing. I just think it would put people in even more danger of arrest. Beating on the media will make bystanders want to snitch on you.

I'm kinda inclined to agree with this statement.

It's not a moral thing, it's not a "the media have the right to film everything!" thing, but beating on professional journalists might actually get more ordinary people to try fucking with the black bloc of their own free will. Journalists have a weird sacred status in America at the very least, and I think taking on that entire tendency RIGHT NOW could backfire and swing in a horrible direction.

Well I would love to have them not get us arrested without having to beat them up, but I don't really don't see any willingness on their part to change that. If this is how it's going to be in the future we may as well pack up now, because no one is going to come out when protecting their privacy is made impossible by these vultures.

Framing this as a question of "to beat the press or not to beat the press", is the wrong approach. The real question is how do we not let these people stop us from taking action? Because as much as it would be nice to just ignore them this is a real threat to our continued ability to do this stuff. And as evidenced by the asshole 'amendment blocer' on this site, they really don't give two shits about us.

What does "beating on the media" even mean? Are you talking about individual journalists or the media as a concept?

I don't think the rights of the press as a sacred category in the US is really all that deeply entrenched actually. People already don't trust ther media. Some good flyers, speeches and vocal denunciations could bring most of the public around to understanding our points. They just haven't been exposed to it yet.

Journalists who still refuse to put their cameras down may get targeted, but that doesn't have to take the form of an open beating. All we really want to do is destroy their equipment, so there's lots of ways to do that. The fuckers are always in the way, so it's not exactly a beating if we knock them down and then smash their shit.

I also think a tactic that needs to be explored more is using people with cameras as battering rams against cops trying to make arrests. If we can make a big pile of cops and journalists, the arrestee may have a better chance of escaping without another comrade having to get caught in the process.

I think dressing up like people with cameras and battering the police might be better. PRESS BLOC!

Even if I sub in "target" for " beating on" I think it would be the same situation. My point is that we can't expect privacy in a public space like it's some sort of right. We're just not going to get it no matter how many cameras get broken, especially now that everyone has a video camera in their pocket. The second people see a spectacle, out come the cameras. We're just going to have to adapt I guess. I don't know the answer, but I don't think targeting the media is going to do it.

Is it possible for Worker to change or at least "update" or "footnote" the last bit here? Obviously fuck the police. And fuck journos for many reasons. But Ryan did NOT hit someone. That's absurd.

The original post is such horseshit that it deserves response. I was at the front from the initial park until just before broadway, and then in the middle and towards the front all the way up to washington square park.

"At least six arrests were made as the march tried to leave the park. Although a few de-arrests were successfully executed, the photographers that formed a line between the rest of the march and the front lines impeded the ability for either further de-arrests or a coordinated retreat. Comrades that were nearly pulled away from the pigs were lost as a direct result of the media's interference."

I was there on the corner. There was a shit ton of cops, and they shut that corner down before anyone else really moved, journalists, activists anyone. It was clear they were ready, probably had shit mad infiltrated, and the idea that journalists formed a line preventing de-arrests is just false. There were numerous de-arrests the rest of the day when individual or small groups of cops tried to bring people down, but there weren't de-arrests on that corner because there were a shit ton of cops there AND NO OTHER REASON. Saying otherwise is stupid and wrong.

"Photographers were continually confronted throughout the demo. These vultures not only put people at very serious legal risk by shooting their faces, but physically interfered with the march's movement and the capacity for people, masked or not, to act. Most telling, however, was the fact that photographers in the midst of the bloc explicitly stated their intent to de-mask participants. This is indicative of their function in identifying those engaged in direct struggle – a role, whether sanctioned or not, that is imperative for police repression to be successful."

I didn't see any of the physically interfering with the march's movement or capacity to act (the front of the march was pretty hardcore about telling people to get out of the way and not to block the banner, and for the people complied as quickly as they could. I didn't see any hampering.). I also didn't hear anything about "explicitly stating" their intent to de-mask participants. If you want to talk about how this is indicative of the media's function, I'd challenge that on every point: I saw journalists hit by both protesters AND police, the way radical movements grow is by spreading the word of them, and the wildcat strike as "direct struggle" is something that should be questioned, but more on that in a second.

Let's cut the shit: The wildcat strike was a spectacle of rejection. I don't challenge that or the anger that inspires it. Global Capitalism is the worst. But a wildcat strike of a few hundred doesn't stop, hamper, pause, or hurt the state or the economic order one iota and we all know it. This isn't rebuttal or a liberal claim to "act pragmatically." There is a fork in the road. One explodes in frustration and, failing to defeat capitalism and the leviathan, it turns its anger elsewhere: purging fellow activists for their political crimes, demonizing the media for serving the state, and burning out in self-defeat. Good luck with that. The other way focuses on its true opponents and works to build a threat so great it cannot be repressed, a force so powerful it cannot be ignored. This doesn't mean ditching the black masks and language and action of rejection of today's order, but it also means understanding spectacle, media, and using every tool to grow and build, not just the ones you and your radicaler-than-thou friends think'll sound cool in your anarchist news debrief. One leads to revolutionary change, the other to a nihilist dead-end. You choose.

A friend even if you don't accept it.

p.s. don't play all revolutionary, assaulting people, and then whine when they hit back. I have no sympathy for police crying about getting pushed back, quit crying when someone you hit, hits back. It make you sound even weaker.

Well at least i think we can all agree on the P.S. part. But this:

"The other way focuses on its true opponents and works to build a threat so great it cannot be repressed, a force so powerful it cannot be ignored."

So the MSM are not our true opponents? They are just some sort of neutral tools that we can use to advance 'a spectacle of rejection'? Even if you want to avoid violent confrontations with journalists, which is understandable, I really don't know how you could defend that position. I mean the issue of them compromising identities is somewhat unavoidable at times, but seriously do you know what these people say about us? What it's their job to say about us? I doubt you could find truer opponents short of cops or informants.

The fact that articles sympathetic to anarchism and the black bloc exist in the media kind of undermines the "it's their job to shit-talk us" point. Things seem to be less black-and-white than that.

I know that a few of the photographers who were attack have been VERY sympathetic to Occupy and to anarchists... not sure what they think now...

Yeah, well if those folks are so for us then they'll have no problem averting their cameras when asked to protect people's identities, right? That is the issue here, no one is putting out a fatwa on everyone who's ever filmed a protest. Btw, can you give me some examples of these articles sympathetic to black bloc actions? Again, in the mainstream media, which is what I was speaking of, Democracy Now doesn't count.

I totally agree with what you've said in this post, I'm just arguing against a targeting of literally all people with cameras (on practical grounds more than anything). I'm speaking only as the person who typed the thing about sympathetic articles about anarchism/the black bloc existing in [almost exclusively independent] media.

(The Guardian could be considered one example of a "mainstream" publication that occasionally has viewpoints sympathetic to anarchism and/or the black bloc, although they're, y'know, a UK publication.)

Yeah, I kind of thought that was the example you would bring up.

And I agree, declaring war on cameras is pretty counter productive. I really don't have a solution for what to do about those that are %100 willing to use them to compromise our identity and thus our ability to do actions, but I guess what I'm getting at is: we better figure out something. Because this is going to be a real threat to our continued ability to do this in the future. Who is going to come out when these vultures ensure make it so damn difficult? And who would possibly be inspired to join in when the chances of being identified are like 100 in 1?

I saw 3 photographers hit protesters, and they were all hit first. I'm not going to take a side on the issue of the media or trying to stop photographers from taking pictures. BUT, when you claim to be a revolutionary and then go an physically assault someone, try to destroy their camera, or something like that you have NO reason to complain about being hit back. That is fucking absurd. What do you expect when you hit someone? Do you want them to just say 'oh sorry' and then leave? YOU are retarded if you think that's what will happen.

If you hit some. Expect to be hit back.

Fuck that, I saw two altercations that weren't photographers defending themselves. I don't give a fuck about that, though. Regardless of who throws the first punch, I think they should be attacked. Just because this dude didn't see the media interfere doesn't mean it didn't happen. several people agreed that the journalists and photographers played a part in fucking up the beginning of the march.

Also, fuck all these anarcho-liberals apologizing for/protecting the media. Either shut up or join the fucking democratic part already.

wah wah a photographer hit me. sillyass suburban anarchits who moved to nyc just cant hang

It is well-known that nyc anarchos are more concrned with accusing people of rape and throwing newspaper boxes in the street than actually organizing and fighting.

what's next, burn books and put yellow stars on people you don't like? Start attacking the press and you'll open a big door to the police etc smash you with no mercy. And who cares about your blog thing? Hate only fuels more hate.

Fuck off pacifist. Godwin's Law FAIL.

Actually, I wouldn't be against public book burnings. People hold the written word with a myopic sacridity. If you want to defend "freedom of speech" (a basic bourgeois tenet) then you are an apologist for the state and the ruling class. We need to demonstrate how their alleged "freedoms" are in actuality myths in the best case, and outright lies in the worst. Opposition to these kinds of tactics betray the opponent's own desire for the safe comfort of their own privileged positions. We are at war; either grow a spine or get the fuck out of the way.

if this press is the safeguard of liberty it claims to be, where is all the FUCKING LIBERTY YOU USELESS FUCKING PARASITES?!

Ha ha, I'm starting to think this guy is a really sophisticated troll.

You're just starting?

I say "Fuck the police" as much as the next guy, but seriously, you people and your so-called "movement?" Read a book, shit. This isn't V for Vendetta, and breaking things in public and making a scene doesn't do anything but make people dismiss your "cause" as the bullshit it really is.

You should try reading literally anything about the anarchist movement in Greece or Chile or England or Germany or Spain or Italy and then re-consider your statement based on the fact that what you are saying is objectively false.

It's funny cause a lot of us do shitloads of reading and absolutely nothing else...

But your grammar is still for shit.

I will admit, this is the problem with citizen journalism, the code of ethics is not understood or upheld and as a result the image of journalism is diluted. I have a long term project going on about OWS. Occupiers are really receptive when you have a legitimate project going and you explain it, I have never had a negative experience because I respect people when they don't want their picture taken and act first as a person and secondly as a photographer. Still, this shows the lack of maturity that unfortunately movements like OWS are suffering from. This is an angry naive statement. "History will be our document?" What does that even mean? Most people don't even realize there are active anarchist movements, most people don't even know something like OWS is still happening. Who exactly is going to document this if we don't? You would be lucky to get a footnote. If it were up to the people that write history the entire anarchist movement and any related activity would be swept under the carpet and kept from the public. There are those who are just there to grab a shot of the "exciting" riot and get a rush out of "documenting" a situation. And there are those who are just there to make a buck and grace the cover of some newspaper or magazine. However, there are also those of us who are there as often as we can to document situations that we believe and we practice our craft every day so that when we do make an image we can bring dignity to the people we photograph and lend sincerity to their plight. You shouldn't be so quick to stereotype.

"History will be our document?"

It means that what matters are the real actions taking place in, y'know reality, what people document is secondary and should not take precedent. You are taking that statement way too literally.

No one is against you documenting occupy. And if you really do "respect people when they don't want their picture taken and act first as a person and secondly as a photographer," then trust me: you have nothing to fear from us. As you accurately say, "There are those who are just there to grab a shot of the "exciting" riot and get a rush out of "documenting" a situation. And there are those who are just there to make a buck and grace the cover of some newspaper or magazine."

So I imagine you understand our issue with that when such people are unwilling to turn their cameras away when we ask. Seriously, no one is against you documenting occupy. The venom you see on this thread is a result of:

A. the fact that it's an anonymous comment thread where anarchists go to blow off steam to other anarchists.

B. the fact that other journalists openly refuse even the notion that they should perhaps co-operate with people who don't want to be filmed in order to keep them from prison. That's what people are furious about, assuming this doesn't apply to you then you have nothing to worry about.

This is absurd. If you do this stuff in public, expect it to be photographed.
We shoot photos of cops beating you guys. It'd be pretty damned unprofessional to not also shoot pictures of you breaking shit.

How about you just do neither, since filming shit actually endangers and inhibits protestors considerably more than it endangers and inhibits the police?

I personally don't find any value in filming cops beating people up. Most folks are aware that police beat the shit out of people - the problem is that some people think that the cops generally have the right to do so, and no amount of photography is going to change their opinion.

If you put people in grave personal danger with your actions, expect consequences.

I'm sure that most people you know are aware of the abuse of force done by police, but a lot of folks you don't know rarely hear about it. Remember it's the people you don't know who you need to convince when you want changes to happen. The photographers who choose to document brutality is your best weapon against brutality after the fact.

Hearts and minds.

Take a look at any given media outlet with a protest-related headline and search for how many times they use the phrase "police defended themselves against violent protestors" as opposed to "protestors defended themselves against violent police".

Images are never left without context, and the OVERWHELMING majority of the time, professional media outlets put them in a context that is antagonistic to radicals, anarchists, protestors, and their friends.

We don't need to document "police brutality". We believe that the police are an inherently brutal institution. And in that case, no, photographs are not our best weapon.

So how do you convince others that you are right about the police? Yelling at them or showing them evidence?

How many of the people holding cameras at protests do you really think work for the MSM?

It's not our job to convince people of anything. Is this how you live your life? Constantly trying to manipulate other people's opinions with your actions instead of acting on your own?

Anyway, if you want to try to convince people the cops are nasty, go ahead I'm fine with that. Film them pepper spraying some hippies chained to the street or something, but when we say "dude you are too close, you are compromising our identity", could you just not be an ass and listen? Cause that's the real issue here, not the validity of your profession.

One person can't speak for the entirety of the press. At diferent points, we've created our own press which has also compromised us, along with abusing social media sites. It might be unavoidable, as some journalists are adventurists that are attracted to difficult stories. Remember Brad Will, one of our own? While he may of got gunned down, that didn't stop journalists from covering Oaxaca. There are entire movies about journalists filming people that didn't want to be filmed. This doesn't mean they get a free pass. In fact, I don't really know if there is anything conclusive to say about this. The press, like any institution, needs destroyed, but this might not have to look like anarchists breaking photojournalist cameras, tipping news vans, stoning their offices or any of that. Just like destroying law enforcement doesn't necessarily look like us taking police guns or chasing them away from us when we are protesting. But also, it can.

I actually seriously don't give a shit about any of the points you're making other than whether or not you're going to continue filming people committing illegal political actions and thus putting them in danger of going to prison.

That is the only thing I care about, here. Not your legitimacy, not the positive uses of the media, not any of that shit. Just point your cameras away when people - especially unmasked people - are fighting cops or breaking things, and I will have no problem with you.

If that conflicts with some ethical standard of yours that says you need to film "all sides of a story" (as though that were ever physically possible in the history of ever), then just don't show up, because I'd rather you film nothing risk getting people in legal trouble.

Do you understand? Is this comprehensible to you?

Why do you shoot photos of cops beating us, though? To what end? I'm sick of this moralizing bullshit about how y'all are putting yourselves on the line for us or whatever other bullshit you manage to conjure up. Clearly, you're not. If you were ~on the front lines~ you'd be with us, fighting with the pigs instead of playing spectator. You don't prevent police brutality. More often than not, in fact, you enable it.

I'm always amazed at the complete lack of ethics in photojournalists. Some are decent, like the ones that agreed to get out of the bloc and not photograph people, but the rest of you are fucking foul.

Eat shit and die, scumbags.

There is no compromising the truth. Real journalists document reality. There are no deals. Especially with unreasonable, irrational thinking mental midgets who have to hide behind masks. John Hancock signed his name largest on. The Declation of Independence so King George would have to put on his spectacles. Ask yourself this question: are you a person of substance or a pussy?

>There is no compromising the truth.
Laughable statement.

>Real journalists document reality.
It is literally impossible to document "reality". At most, you can document a limited representation of certain events that take place within reality.

>There are no deals.
Another huge fucking lie. You are clearly not a journalist.

>Especially with unreasonable, irrational thinking mental midgets who have to hide behind masks.
Try committing illegal acts without a mask on and see where it gets you, dipshit.

>John Hancock signed his name largest on. The Declation of Independence so King George would have to put on his spectacles. Ask yourself this question: are you a person of substance or a pussy?


'are you a person of substance or a pussy?'

Which are you 'man with the movie camera', hiding behind behind your device profiteering off other people's struggles and suffering? You sanctimonious twat.

No one needs what you do, except you. No one admires you for it. No one is glad that you do it. You are a fucking parasite, and you have just proven that.

Why do you consider it unethical to be discriminatory on who we shoot or why? As a photojournalist it is my ethical responsibility to shoot BOTH sides of ANY story. You people want others to know what your about, why your doing what your doing but yet when your in a public place you whine that you don't want to be recorded. You can't have it both ways folks. All or nothing, you don't like it change the law legally but until the first amendment gets that radical change, deal with it. You can't approach this violently. People will get hurt in the process then the WHY and WHAT gets lost in the shuffle. As for being patsy of the police, if you truly believe that then your a lot more naive than I realized.

The photographers that backed off are the ones that need retraining in ethics. You have every right to be pissed off and demonstrate peacefully. However I have the right to film you. You don't like that? Don't show up!

It comes down to mutual respect. Have it for me, Ill have it for you.

End of story.

Again with the liberal rhetoric of rights. Your ”rights” are exercised at the expense of or freedom. And photographers don't respect people. That's the fucking point. Your journalistic ethics trump everything else and that's the problem. Photographing a bloc can and has sent people to prison. What the fuck is ethical about that?

If your doing something ILLEGAL then you deserve to go to prison... that's how real life works kiddo!

Hell yeah dude! I totally agree! I was just telling some friends of mine that the whole civil rights movement of the 60s deserved to rot in prison for life because they had all those unpermitted marches and sit-ins on private property and stuff.

>You people want others to know what your about, why your doing what your doing
I'm going to ignore your atrocious grammar and point out that 99% of anarchists are incredibly critical of corporate media and have little interest in interacting with it in any way. If anarchists ever converse with the press, it's on the terms of the anarchists, not because the press deigned to stoop so low to interview some people desperate to get on TV.

>All or nothing, you don't like it change the law legally but until the first amendment gets that radical change, deal with it. You can't approach this violently.
Howbout instead we do whatever the fuck we think we should do and you go fuck yourself? Why would you ever think that anarchists have any respect for the Constitution or laws or any of that shit?

>You have every right to be pissed off and demonstrate peacefully. However I have the right to film you. You don't like that? Don't show up!
I'm gonna go ahead and say that I have every right to smash your fucking camera, and there's really nothing you can do about it. If you have a problem with that, don't film people who don't want to be filmed.

>It comes down to mutual respect. Have it for me, Ill have it for you.
The fact that you're arguing in favor of endangering peoples' lives, possibly landing them in prison, based on some self-righteous adherence to arbitrary legal concepts - and acting like a condescending piece of shit schooling some children on the "proper" means of political action in America - doesn't really inspire me to have respect for you as a person.

You have no ethics, how is filming people who don't want to be filmed ethical?

Hiding behind some guise of neutrality and then not giving a shit what happens to people as a result of what your actions couldn't be further from ethical: it's selfish, cowardly, and and has fuck all to do with some abstract notion of 'the truth.'

If you had respect for us, you would give a shit if get arrested or not. But you don't, so I hope you get hit by a bus.

Kent State. One photo. Know your history you fucking twerp.

Ok, what about it?

Did that photo keep those kids from getting shot? Did it prevent millions of retarded Americans from siding with the National Guard and cheering them on for having killed those kids? Did it change anything that day, except morbidly pad some asswipe's resume? I guess it probably went in his portfolio, must have been a good career move for him shooting those dead kids. You people are as sick as you are stupid.

I admire real people who question their craft and the ramifications of what they do, and there are many of them out there who do incredible work that advances the struggle. None of those people would arrogantly say "I am the arbiter of the truth, I have carte blanche to film anything and everyone no matter whether people want me to or not, and I give not a fuck about the consequences."

All you have to do is agree that maybe sometimes people have a right to their privacy when they are in danger, but I guess your noble 'truth-seeking quest' is more important than our freedom.

I really find it hard to understand the true motivation and intention of these words (intended to be acted out Im assuming). Who you are, who everyone is, has a tap root deep with in the social structure of our country/ civilization. What is the goal here? The only rational conclusion is that there's an abundance of testosterone. A bunch of boys (and girls, they have testosterone too) who havent grown up, and Im not talking about the growing up where you get a suit and an office job and become a shmuck. For a bunch of anarchists this sure seems organized :~}

Hahahahaha, what?

Having cameras present at protests is the best way to show that the cops deserve what they get.


You'll never gain any support and any momentum you mistakenly think you've created will fade because no one really cares. No one really cares because (you're idiots) you clearly don't understand how public opinion works. Keep being anarchists, so bad ass of you. So intimidating!

The very group you should be working closely with, the ones that actually have the power to persuade others of your arguments and concerns, that can make you appear as though you should be taken seriously, that can portray you as organized and significant...are photographers. The patches on your camo backpacks and Fawkes masks don't get results. It's all about the image.

Reminder: if you're in public, you're subject to being photographed. I don't care if you say "get that camera out of my face." At that point, it's my decision whether to abide to your request or not. But go ahead and spray-paint a lens or smash a camera - guarantee yourselves more marches with 300 people rather than 3000 and blog posts with 13 comments rather than 200.


Tldr version.
Take pics outside of a black bloc and away from crimes in progress. Afterwords even! We don't care about 'information.' That's not our discourse. We don't care about rights. We put on masks to make illegal attacks against property, to resist "transparent" democratic politics. Y'all should heed the fair warning. Nobody wants to fight photographers and videographers.
Srsly photojournalists, and "media activists," y'all gonna talk a big game like the dude above, but we're the ones who wiln out breakin, burnin, and fightin cops. Its pretty real in every other country during riots, and any you photojournalist fools old enough to remember wearin flak jackets and helmets at FTAA demos know how real it can get even in north america. We're just sayin... be cool and be safe, or...


If someone puts a camera in my face when I am doing something "illegal" or even if they just catch me at the wrong time, I will smash their own lens back into their fucking teeth.

I'm not here to pay your bills, or help your feel more important in your spectacle-pandering, I'm here to change the world.

You're not here to change the world. You just wanna smash shit. Politics is simply your way of justifying your actions.

Fuck politics, when I just wanna burn shit down, I say so! Better a hooligan than a photojournalist with delusions of grandeur and self-importance!

Find a tall building top jump off of, but make sure you photograph everything on the way down or else nobody will know about it and it won't matter.

Whoopsie, that should say "to" jump off of. I'm sure you got the picture. (Ha ha, photography pun!)

If I can visit my excess violence upon the targets I think need to be destroyed to change the world, then I'm happy.

seconded. self-defeating ideologues are self-defeating.

back in the 80's when i worked at bound together and was part of anarchist actions in SF, including the 'food not bombs' action (yes 'that' action...), we actually hoped for newspaper photogs to be around. kept the cops in line, at least a bit. closest thing we had for protection, actually. saved our bacon more than once having them there. they got beaten by the cops, too.
in fact, they tied the cops hands so badly, and embarrassed them too often, that they actually had a team of people whose task was to identify photographers during actions and take their film for 'evidence' reasons, then getting the film lost (of course, it was NOT because they kept getting sued based on those images, and regularly showing up doing illegal things on the front page of the paper, no never THAT...)

yeah, go ahead and call the photographers enemies. god knows you call everyone an enemy that isn't in your little social clique now, you sad, whiny, exclusionary little emo hipster fucks. we used to spend time traveling all over the state, and beyond, making alliances with different action groups - even ones we had 90% disagreements with - but if we could come together on one core issue we could march together on that one related action. Of course, we regularly had 2000 and 3000 person actions, too, on occasion some notably larger.
for you to get maybe, maybe 300 in Man-fucking-hattan is just pathetically sad, and its the biggest accomplishment you people have ever had recently. shows what you really are, doesn't it?

Shit, I remember that one time you led an anarchist revolution to a successful outcome. You're right, we should probably just follow by your example and stop being little emo hipster fucks. I've gotten kind of tired of listening to Linkin Park at all my anarchy meetings anyway.

be snarky all you want, but i might note that at that action i just mentioned, i recall at least one 'evil' mainstream journalist was singled out and beaten by the cops - and permanently disabled - because he refused to back off and look the other way like he was told. several of them covered what the cops were doing to us, got beaten, and one crippled.
how is that for 'being the enemy'? know any of your hipster friends that would risk that?

and you know what? the media coverage ended it. the cops were forced to leave us alone after that. can your little hipster friends claim that?

/that was also the first of two times in my life i saw journalists testimony get charges dropped and free participants. without that they would have gotten convicted by the cops words, as no other bloc members would have been believed. how about your little hipster friends word? think that would do it?

And yet, and yet...the fact remains you did not accomplish the goal.

So now we're trying something different. Maybe this is the key, maybe it's not. You don't know any better than I do. You thought your way would work then and it didn't, maybe you're wrong now, too.

"History will be our document."

So, you are honestly suggesting alienating -even more- people is an actual intentional strategy? Really?

In tandem with helping the police to control the message by actively working to help them control all media related to your interactions with them by eliminating all independent observation?

Gee, that is gonna work out swimmingly. Let me know how this 'new direction' does for you. Did you let a police plant decide your strategy for you or something?

Was this article written by some undercover cop who doesn't want to get in shit next time he pepper-sprays a bunch of protesters for no reason?

Actually the cops never get in shit for that. You film them, and nothing happens to the cops. Also, no one said anything about preventing people from photographing cops pepper spraying 'a bunch of protesters for no reason.' What people said was: don't photograph the bloc when they ask you not to. If you are going to ride our coattails you could at least be civil about it.

"Also, no one said anything about preventing people from photographing cops pepper spraying 'a bunch of protesters for no reason.' What people said was: don't photograph the bloc when they ask you not to."

No, what was said ranged from the blind hatred of the 'attack them on sight' flavor, to the jealously/class warfare angle of the 'smash gear because it costs more money than i will ever see' flavor, to simple theft and greed of the 'steal cameras and make the rent with them' flavor.

Nowhere was there an actual coherent discussion on how to handle them in a manner useful to the movement, only scattered rational comments like yours and a few others buried in the hubris.

As a photojournalist, I'd just like to warn would be camera-snatchers and photographer-beaters. We do this shit everyday! How often are you in the middle of a violent confrontation with police? Once every six months or so. We're in the middle of it every week.

We are fearless. Many have tried to stop us. You think Hitler wanted photos taken in the death camps? Guess what we did. We took pictures in the fucking death camps.

Several other people have already defended photojournalists saying that they are trying to tell your story. Which is completely true, but for those of you who do not want to listen, and who want to attack us, know that we are not all weak, L.A. paparazzi.

Did you know that most seasoned photographers thread a guitar string through their camera strap so they can't be cut by dumbasses with seatbeat cutters? You know what else guitar string is good for? Choking the shit out of people.

You may spray paint our lenses, but I've got more lenses in bag right as you do it. You may even get a camera out of my hands, but I've got another camera back in the car, and if you take that one, I still have my phone. You can even put me in the hospital, but the newspaper has another photographer who is already in his car on the way.

I know you don't subscribe to rules, but it's called freedom of the press, motherfuckers. It's a universal principle, not a law. If a bunch of Nazis, extremists dictators and the most wealthy corporations in the world can't stop us, what chance do a bunch of suburban ex-pat, emo pussies have.

Do you have any idea how many journalists have died doing what they believe in? Do you think that scares any of us?

Work with us. We can be your voice. But don't fuck with us.

Karney Hatch talks a big game, don't he?

Here he is raeping us with his photos:

Can anybody get some dox on this guy?

Well, his phone number is publicly listed on his website and thus, I assume, free to be reposted anywhere else on the internet:


This is an L.A. number, but from what I've read, he's finishing a movie on urban gardening in Portland, which is also where he lives.

"Work with us. We can be your voice."

Yeah, we'll need you to be once we're in prison thanks to your evidence. Also, do you have any idea how arrogant this 'we' shit is?

"We are fearless. Many have tried to stop us. You think Hitler wanted photos taken in the death camps? Guess what we did. We took pictures in the fucking death camps."

Oh yeah, that was you bro? Cooool, let's get a pint and you can tell me all the amazing stories of what other people did and you are willing to take credit for. Do you even know how conceited that sounds?

"Do you have any idea how many journalists have died doing what they believe in? Do you think that scares any of us?"

Do you know how many anarchists have died actually FIGHTING for what they believe in and not just trying to make money off of someone else's conflict? We don't care about scaring you. In fact dude, sorry to burst your bubble, but we don't care about you at all. You are just part of the system preforming your function like gas station attendants or airline stewardesses.

What we care about is our ability to commit actions against the state and corporate property. We don't need you to be our voice, we just need you to get out of our way when we are doing our thing.

Is that really so hard for a working professional to understand? Can you please explain to me the ethics of shooting people when they don't want to be filmed and are endangered as a result? That is the ONLY thing we are angry about, and you didn't even mention it once in your rambling attempt to talk yourself up, as though people who are actually risking their freedom would be impressed by your vulturism.

If someone asks you to turn off your camera because you are too close or they lose their mask or something like that: will you or won't you?

That is all we care about, save us your bragging about how awesome your chosen career field is.


I fucking lol'd at all of this bullshit, because I am so 100% certain that you are not nearly as hardcore as you're talking yourself up to be.

Freedom of the press not a "universal principle" at all, you dumb asshole - there are very specific limitations on what forms of speech and media are permissible in any given society. Freedom of the press is a concept that has no meaning unless defined, and once you define it, you put limitations on it. And in any case, this argument isn't even about that shit, it's about dumbass photojournalists (like yourself) PUTTING PEOPLE IN DANGER BY PHOTOGRAPHING THEM WHILE THEY ARE UNDERTAKING POLITICAL ACTION. Do you comprehend this? Photographing the faces of protestors during an illegal action benefits the police and the government so much more than it benefits the protestors themselves. That is the basis of anybody having a problem with you. Anything else is just dancing around the topic. Own up to your actions.

You talk a lot of game, but that's not gonna stop people from knocking your lights out and smashing your camera if you get stupid.

Good on you man. I work in the industry too, and I don't know any PJ's that would EVER turn over photos to the cops. At least not without SPECIFIC warrants describing in detail exactly what they demand, which is why the cops don't usually even try. We go to jail to protect sources all the time, 'accidentally' losing a few images off of a memory card is not a big deal.

To be perfectly frank and crass and cynical, pics of the face of a hooligan that may or may not be breaking shit is not a money shot anyway. Every time I see something like this I am honestly waiting for the shot of pigs going apeshit on some frail bloody kid on the ground. That will get a payday and some attention. Call me a vulture if you will getting paid for that, but it serves your purposes as well, doesn't it? The cops know this, which is why they fear us.

Considering the cops think of anyone with a camera pointed their way and not under their control is a terrorist - and yes, journos get threatened and beat and get gear seized illegally all the time since 911 just for doing their legal jobs - I think the level of animosity against the cops is almost as high among us as it is among you anarchist types. My glasses were broken recently by a punch from a cop because I wouldn't turn off my camera and leave when they wanted to cover up something. We wouldn't budge to their threats to arrest us, but we have lawyers and press organizations behind us, so they eventually left. Not before hitting me though. See, they see us as the enemy, too - and we, them.

I'd gladly 'lose' a memory card full of protesters if needed, but I'd dump to the internet images of cops crossing the line (though it isn't necessary as there are so many services itching to pay handsomely for them, which should also tell you something).

We aren't the same, but we aren't exactly on opposing sides either. Free press is a threat to abuse of power, so cops target us, too. You don't have to treat everyone that isn't you as enemies - you look too narrowly at that division, and you include a lot of people as enemies that may be sympathetic to parts of your cause we have in common.

You sound like a pretty solid individual. My only problem is with these other self-aggrandizing fucks claiming that they "have every right" to photograph and publish images of people partaking in illegal political action, even if they are directly (if often inadvertently) serving the interests of the police in the process.

A note to any photographers reading this (but not particularly the one I'm replying to): you can't claim that you're the only reason that radical/anti-authoritarian social movements are allowed to exist in this country and then turn around and defend your "right" to send those very same people to prison for the sake of your job.

If your illegal actions are taking place in the public arena the photographer does have every right to take your pic. You're just pissed off because it increases the chances of you being held responsible for your own actions.

I don't believe in "rights" you dumb piece of shit. I could not care about what "rights" you claim to have. They're an arbitrary concept invented by state institutions to grant certain freedoms at the expense of freedom itself.

Fuck off with your legal concepts, because I really could not possibly care less. It's not about what you have the "right" to do, it's about what will wind up causing harm to me or someone I care about - and if you do something that causes harm to me or someone I care about, you will suffer consequences.

"I don't believe in "rights""

spoken like a true authoritarian

This is the dumbest comment that has yet been posted in this entire article, congratulations. We'll be mailing you your trophy.

funny, is this some 'new' anarchism lately we haven't heard of. all those quaint old things called 'books' i have read by anarchists over the years seems to talk about rights in some great detail.

it would make sense that you guys are running off some new simplified 'readers digest' concept of anarchy now. it would explain why you seem to be such self-defeating little fucks lately. maybe some real research, or maybe talking to an adult would help. one that can read.

who is we? and no, its isn't new, rejection and criticism of rights goes back to Max Stirner and the egoist anarchists, so it seems that it is you who need to do some research.

There were no photojournalists in concentration camps you miserable sack of shit. If you're going to take credit for shot you didn't do, at least make it historically accurate.

And, following your own fucked up example, guess who else REALLY liked having photo documentation of everything? Yeah. The fucking Nazis.

"And, following your own fucked up example, guess who else REALLY liked having photo documentation of everything? Yeah. The fucking Nazis."

Yeah, and they were awesome!

So many huge tools bitching about violence during a riot. Grow a pair you neckbeard hipsters.

If it wasn't for the media, you'd get three at your piddly protest, not 300....

Uh, I don't think the media typically serves as an advertising tool for radicals. Mostly they put out a twenty-second report on radical actions after they actually happen.

Yeah because we send memos out to you guys all the time to advertise for us... oh wait, we don't because we figure that shit out ourselves. You need us for a story, not the other way around. In fact we would be much better off without you.

You mean that you really think that society would be better without a free press? Please.

/Without the check of a free press, the authoritarians would be further along their march to totalitarianism than they are now.

//Oh, and they would have no reason not to just shoot you in your beds or confine you to 'mental hospitals' like in china, or the old soviet states

///We are the only reason you are even still here, brother.

Comparing the modern American (or generally capitalist) media industry to every single person who has ever published any form of non-fiction ever is the biggest pile of bullshit ever suggested in the history of the universe.

You are a self-important idiot with delusions of how important your chosen profession really is - which is to say, not very important at all.

The most liberatory forms of media that have done the most good for opposing authoritarianism are the ones that have no connection whatsoever to professional journalism.

"The most liberatory forms of media that have done the most good for opposing authoritarianism are the ones that have no connection whatsoever to professional journalism."

[Citation Needed]

The person who recorded the Rodney King beating, the person who caught the Oscar Grant execution on tape, anybody with a cell phone camera and a view of the cops, the folks who sneaked into slaughterhouses and vivisection labs and documented the shit they saw, anybody who has ever published a zine or posted vids on Indymedia, all those old-ass IWW peeps who would just stand on literal soap boxes and shout out to bystanders, anyone who's ever made some radical propaganda and posted it on Youtube, anyone who makes posters and sticks them up with wheatpaste, anyone who vandalizes billboards with some radical shit. . .

On and on and fucking on. You can't be of service to anarchy and of service to a private media conglomerate at the same time, except by accident.

"The person who recorded the Rodney King beating, the person who caught the Oscar Grant execution on tape, anybody with a cell phone camera and a view of the cops,"

the mere act of recording it was enough, huh? the second they did that and ran home and put the tape under their mattress for safekeeping, or maybe under their pillow for the anarcho-syndicalist tooth-collective fairy, social justice was instantly obtained?

or maybe the fact it got into every fucking living room and on every front porch in the civilized world had something to do with, oh, i don't know, CAPITALIST FUCKING MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS?

just spitballing here, but i have a funny feeling most people heard about it due to the latter.

"You can't be of service to anarchy and of service to a private media conglomerate at the same time, except by accident."

Now I would fully agree with this. But you would have to be an idiot not to recognize when those happy accidents of parallel agendas occur, and leverage that to exploit their quite appreciable power to the fullest.
We know the media are whores, but they are whores to both the dollar and to extending their own power, and not to government or police power (which, incidentally want to restrict them to expand their own), so they are two very different things, and in a way at odds. This isn't state-run media. Yet, anyway, or you never would have seen those things make headlines. We also know they can't find a story. Hell, they often couldn't their ass with a map and a compass. So do the legwork and hand them one you know they will eat up, and let them run with it, when it is useful to you. Is that so hard to comprehend? "the folks who sneaked into slaughterhouses and vivisection labs and documented the shit they saw" is a great example of that.
YOU go find that shit out, then let them broadcast it. That or put it under your bed and wonder why no one knows about it, because you don;t want 'them' making a buck from it. Your choice.

Sorry, the media is an enemey. Fact.

State-run or not the media is the fourth estate. We don't need the first three and we don't need the fourth either.

Has the western media prevented a certain amount of oppression? Yes, but it's also caused too much. The truth is that if there were no media supporting it, our government would fail.

This is what the people here seek. So we seek to destroy the media.

That doesn't mean we won't try to use the media when it suits our needs, but no love.

ah, so it comes out. the first three estates only truly fear the fourth. without it, they could reign with impunity. you wish to destroy the only thing oppressors fear at all. so truth is the enemy. discussion is the enemy. information is the enemy. interesting.

what powerful men do by force and in darkness should remain safely in darkness. yes. i see you. you are just like them, just without power. you don't hate thier power, you hate not having it yourself. with power, you would be just like them, only worse.

you should read animal farm, by orwell. its a how-to manual for people like you.


You are a strange man, and I've kinda lost track of what it is you're trying to say. (To be fair, I don't really get what the person above you was saying, either.)

I'm pretty sure the argument is still "don't film people who are committing illegal actions, and anarchists will have no problem with you".

But hey, why don't we bring this argument to a close with this.

Good thing you conveniently ignored 90% of that post and only responded to the points that you could kinda, sorta, almost use in your favor!

Eat shit and die, you haven't made a single viable point for the entire time you've been here.

i don't even know from your post exactly who in this mess of anons you are actually referring to, only that whomever it was you were arguing with, you have clearly lost. funny how when people can't find fault in an argument or dispute its truth, they can always fall back on vulgarities and ad hominem attacks in lieu of the ability to compose a cogent response.

I'm pretty sure that what you said is exactly what the above poster is implying - for lack of any actual coherent points, you've resorted to a lot of name-calling and baseless assumptions.

so pointing out that someone has stopped making any points whatsoever is by definition somehow "name-calling and baseless assumptions"?
it is rather hard to prepare a cogent response to someone who is making no points to respond to. especially with no reference point as to what he is talking about in the first place, much less the the person he is swearing at.

perhaps you can form long, coherent, and well-reasoned response to "eat shit and die" uttered without reference even to target, but i must have missed that part of advanced debate class.

Pretty sure the press didn't put up too much of a fight in Soviet Russia, kiddo.

You're gonna come down on a photographer for threatening you, when this article and half these fucking comments are all just big talk threats, too. Fucking idiots.

Being an anarchist in America is like being anti-cake at a birthday party. The vast majority of American's fucking LOVE their system. They love it, and roll around in it all day. Not only that, the powers that be pretty much give them the authority to violently defend it against anarchists. Try to pull some anarchist riot shit in Texas. Someone will shoot you and all your friends.

If you really want to fulfill your anarchist ideals, figure out a way to make a shit load of money. If Americans are just sheep, then manipulate them and make a ton of money. Once you have that money you can do whatever you want.

I don't give a fuck what you're doing. If you're in public, then I'm taking your picture. You talk about not believing in rights, so you threaten consequences. Even if there are a ton of you, I'll shoot out a window with a telephoto lens. You'll never know I'm there. Dumbasses. Where a fucking mask.

to the photographer-commenter who is claiming solidarity against cops: i can assure you that most local photojournalists and reporters with city PD-issued press badges do not think of cops as the enemy. many of them work the cop beat and go to crime scenes everyday, where they need to maintain friendly relationships with both uniforms and precinct captains, or else they won't get the story or maybe next time their access will be limited.

so it's cool that you as a photojournalist don't like cops; you clearly don't work the local crime beat for a city paper. the establishment reporters here who've been beaten and arrested by NYPD have stayed relatively quiet about it in public, because any tweet or statement that is too strongly worded could negatively affect their access to future NYPD-facilitated events, which would in turn make that journalist less useful to his or her employer.

a few of the small number of photographers harassed at this march were apparently freelancers from Boston, which might tell you something. it's funny, because over the past year the international journalists from Europe and Asia have been the least trouble, as they've actually been in serious street battle-type situations and know how to respect their subjects while still getting their story or their Getty-certifiable photos.

photographers, i don't care about an abstract "freedom of press" when i'm trying to actively save friends from being beaten and arrested by an out-of-control police force. think of your getting out of the way as an investment, since dearresting makes cops much angrier and thus increases your chances of eventually getting that sweet police brutality money shot that will pay out big.

p.s. anarchos: you all realize that the obvious way to keep journalists on the outside of your marches is to just keep a tight bloc, right? the sprinting was useful for leaving lazy livestreamers and university newspaper reporters behind, but it definitely didn't work on the professionals, all of whom are really good at this kind of thing. the impenetrable ring that they quickly formed around the first arrests would have been admirable had it not been in the complete service of the state.

"you all realize that the obvious way to keep journalists on the outside of your marches is to just keep a tight bloc, right?"

I think an obvious way to keep journalists out your march is... uhhh... not to march. Why the fuck are you marching? People march so others can know what they stand for. If you really, truly want to "destroy the state" then a march really isn't gonna do much. Marches work for non-violent people seeking change, not destruction.

If you really think you're all hot shit, and you want to tear shit up, then do it. Make an armed assault on Washington and see how that works out for you. If you're underarmed, then start hitting small police stations and move up to larger installations. You keyboard cowboy's crack me up. You group up in the streets to break a few windows and make a spectacle for who? Yourselves. That's how you change minds and hearts to your cause. You got to be fucking kidding me.

Unless you seriously change tactics, then 20, 30 or 50 years from now you're going to die in a system that you hate, a system that hates you. But what I've discovered is that most of you just like being on the outside. It's like you need something to bitch about, so you choose to go way out into the fringe. And that's totally fine. You have that right in my book. But seriously, you're not getting anywhere.

And I don't know about NYC, but where I live, the cops LOVE shooting people. It's like they're favorite thing to do. So be careful out there. Regardless of how much you piss me off, I really don't want to see any of you die.

Soooo...your solution is to censor the right to photograph in public? Hmm sounds a little hypocritical to me. If you don't want your identity to be known cover your face or don't go out. If you are scared you're gonna get caught because an image taken by a journalist then you don't have the guts to be fighting for whatever it is you believe in the first place. You can't regulate information distribution or how it is attained.

i think some people got the wrong idea here. [1] an anarchist is by definition never violent. [2] an anarchist would never wear a mask or hide his or her face. anarchists are by definition completely forthright and nonviolent. today (and for a long time actually) there are a lot of people calling themselves anarchists who are really not. let's argue about that.

s g collins

I very much agree with you. It would seem as if most people calling themselves anarchists today are uneducated about it and prefer to use anger and bloodshed than to understand anarchist ideals. As a photographer who strongly supports anarchism it's very sad to hear about this. As someone who has photographed May Day before and marched with thousands of people taking action towards a better world I'm confused as to why modern "anarchists" seem to enjoy violence so much. It's actually very disgusting.

Dumbest comment yet.

I disagree. Anarchists would hide their faces, as it is necessary in the police state where they are okay with rounding you up and throwing you in jail for absolutely nothing.

However, a true anarchist would not attack innocent people and take away their rights. People have a right to assemble peacefully - that is a human right. And with that right comes the right to have a camera and photograph things without worrying about being attacked. It's ridiculous that anarchists have come to this... They are now NO BETTER than the state wish they seek to destroy. The utilize the same tactics and harass the same people.

Saying that anarchists are "no better than the state" because both anarchists and the state occasionally target journalists, for completely different reasons and using completely different methods, is stupid as hell.

What a dumb article. You write like a high-school kid who can finally say "fuck" without getting his face slapped. And what a stupid thing, calling cops "pigs." It didn't work in the 60s, and it won't work now. You see, there are a lot of cops and relatives of cops in this country (every town has some), and people, human beings, as cops actually are, get offended when they are compared to lower forms of life. You are too immature to understand that yet. I feel sorry for you kids who call yourselves "revolutionaries," and "anarchists." You need a good dose of Frank Zappa, maybe.

Second-dumbest comment yet.

You mean Frank Zappa who sheltered Charles Manson, had state intelligence ties, and was probably himself a government asset in a psyops campaign against your whole generation? Here's a couple quotes from the series of articles I provided the link to below.

First of all, he supported the war:

"Given that Zappa was, by numerous accounts, a rigidly authoritarian control-freak and a supporter of U.S. military actions in Southeast Asia, it is perhaps not surprising that he would not feel a kinship with the youth movement that he helped nurture. And it is probably safe to say that Frank’s dad also had little regard for the youth culture of the 1960s, given that Francis Zappa was, in case you were wondering, a chemical warfare specialist."

Secondly, his parenting skills were, let's say, questionable:

"And as Barry Miles noted in his Zappa biography, Frank’s daughter Moon “recalls men with straggling beards, body odour and bad posture who crouched naked near her playthings …” Also, the “Zappa children watched porn with their parents and were encouraged in their own sexuality as soon as they reached puberty. When they became teenagers, Gail insisted they shower with their overnight guests in order to conserve water.” Because, you know, apparently the Zappas were having a hard time paying their water bill."

You might think twice about glorifying Zappa or any of the the hippie figureheads after reading this: