https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/795

(a) Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730244)

is this statute as drafted really the least restrictive means of protecting national defense interests?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730278)

I don't think taking pictures is speech.

Guess it could arguably be press. But the press isn't being infringed if they give permission.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730710)

I also don't know how the "permission" part plays into it, even if there was case law that said such a thing about photos.

And I don't know the government interest standard for freedom of the press but the government has a pretty strong one here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730737)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730753)

I think there's a reason a case hasn't been brought on constitutional grounds.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730797)

how many ppl are even charged under this federal crime. maybe that's why it hasnt been challenged

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730815)

https://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/what_law_did_the_toledo_blade_break_army_wont_say.php

There is surprisingly little case law on § 795—I wasn’t aware of it until a colleague pointed it out, and I study this stuff for a living. Going back more than 60 years, I found only 11 cases citing the statute, and no challenges to its constitutionality. The case closest factually to the Blade’s appears to be the most recent—Genovese v. Town of Southhampton, decided in 2013 by the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. A woman stopped her car on a public road to photograph a restored helicopter on the grounds of an airport, half of which is an Air Force base. She took the photos from the airport’s fence line, shooting what was visible from the road. The woman was detained and later filed a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that she was unlawfully detained.

The court dismissed all of her claims for various reasons, and found that the police had probable cause to detain the woman for violating § 795 by photographing a “vital military installation.” Remarkably, her attorneys didn’t challenge the statute, and in fact they wrote in a letter to the court: “[T]here is nothing to oppose the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 795 in this matter.” It’s worth mentioning that the case is distinguishable from The Blade’s in at least one major way: The woman had a semiautomatic assault rifle in a gun case in plain view in the front passenger seat of her car, a fact that certainly would make her less sympathetic to the court in the context of an unlawful detainment claim.

So, if the government does cite § 795, what would that mean for The Blade’s lawsuit? Even if a court agreed that the statute gave military police good reason to detain Fraser and Linkhorn, the law likely would not provide a complete defense to all of the newspaper’s claims—10 in total arising from the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, as well as the Privacy Protection Act. That law, passed in 1980, generally makes it “unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize” work product and documentary materials “possessed by a person in connection with a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper … or other similar form of public communication.” (Remember, the guards didn’t just detain the journalists; they also allegedly deleted Fraser’s photos.)

Further, § 795 is susceptible to a facial challenge—i.e., a claim that the statute is unconstitutional on its face, that it always operates unconstitutionally. The law “seems overly broad because it doesn’t distinguish military secrets and what is plainly visible to the public,” said Cindy Gierhart, a legal fellow at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “The US military has very good reasons for keeping certain information regarding its equipment, weapons, and operations secret, but making it a crime to photograph the outside of a building that is plainly marked as a government facility, is viewable to any passerby or on Google Street View, and doesn’t betray any military secrets doesn’t serve any purpose.”

Indeed, it’s true that the government controls access to its military installations, commanding officers enjoy discretion in the discharge of their duties, and neither military installations nor battlefields are public forums—but if a statute is so broadly written that it deters free expression, it can be struck down on its face because of its chilling effect, even if the statute prohibits acts that legitimately may be prohibited. Moreover, when the government wants to advance an interest (e.g., protecting sensitive military installations) and it has available a variety of effective means, it must choose the one that least interferes with expressive rights.

To spell out the logic of Gierhart’s comments a bit further, then: If a law fails to distinguish what can be seen readily from a public street and a space so “vital” it “requir[es] protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto,” the law stands to interfere with the general right, under the First Amendment and state common law, to observe, record, and publish what easily can be seen or heard in public. The ruling in Genovese, the 2013 case, didn’t acknowledge that issue—but, again, the attorneys didn’t “oppose the applicability” of § 795. The Blade’s lawsuit could become the first challenge to the statute.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730320)

But it was a big deal in the 1980s and bases have signs warning you not to take pictures or at least they used to.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730275)

Zhao Qianli says he’s a musicology student from China who traveled to the United States for a summer exchange program. After he finished his studies in September, he booked a flight to Miami and then headed for Key West.

But rather than see the Hemingway House and other sights, Qianli got caught by Key West police for trespassing onto the high-security Naval Air Station. He later told federal authorities that he lost his way on the tourist trail and did not realize it was a military base.

Investigators found photos and videos on Qianli’s smartphone as well as on his digital camera that he had taken of government buildings and a Defense Department antenna field on the military base.

Qianli, 20, who is being held in Monroe County Jail, pleaded guilty Tuesday to one count of photographing defense installations at the Key West military facility and was sentenced to one year in prison by U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore. The judge gave him the maximum sentence, which was higher than the sentencing guidelines between zero and six months. The U.S. attorney’s office sought nine months in prison.

Federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin said that Qianli waded into the water in his clothes to go around the security fence on the southern end of the naval base, where signs say it is a restricted area — and to keep out. He said that, contrary to his claim that he was just a tourist and got lost, FBI agents found no pictures of the typical tourist spots such as Mallory Square on his smartphone or digital camera.

“The primary pictures on that camera were of the military facility,” Sherwin said, noting that a witness saw Qianli go directly to the Defense Department antenna field and snap pictures. “It did not have the hallmark of a tourist who got lost and wandered onto the military facility.”

But Qianli’s defense attorney, Hongwei Shang, repeatedly said her client was a college student at North University of China who was visiting Key West as a tourist after completing a summer exchange program.

“He’s not a spy,” Shang argued at Tuesday’s hearing. “A spy would not do things like him. There’s no proof. ... He committed a stupid mistake. He confessed to it. He just wants to go home.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730251)

Secret AZN Man

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730259)

jst cause hes a chink he gets 1 year, totaly fuking raciss, they wldnt even arrest him if he was russian

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730296)

ur a genius tommy gj

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730536)

what kind of evidence do u think? maybe he would have spy equipment on him i guess? like a maybe a piece of visual spying equipment? perhaps something that could fly, but not with a human attached bc a hang glider would be too obvious, and a kite couldn’t be controlled, so maybe some kind of mechanized flying device?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730579)

Have him launch a drone from the hotel balcony?

He snuck around a fence (in the water) and got got

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730345)

The judge gave him the maximum sentence, which was higher than the sentencing guidelines between zero and six months. The U.S. attorney’s office sought nine months in prison.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730356)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37730526)

will her or her client take more white cock over the next 12 months?

------------

But Qianli’s defense attorney, Hongwei Shang, repeatedly said her client was a college student at North University of China who was visiting Key West as a tourist after completing a summer exchange program.

“He’s not a spy,” Shang argued at Tuesday’s hearing. “A spy would not do things like him. There’s no proof. ... He committed a stupid mistake. He confessed to it. He just wants to go home.”

Shang talked about Qianli’s parents and their desire to see him again, as she choked up during her comments to the judge.

Seeking mercy for her client, Shang talked about North Korea’s detention of an American student, Otto Warmbier, who was released in 2017 after 17 months in captivity and one year in a coma. Warmbier, a Ohio native who later died, had visited North Korea with a tour group after traveling in China. He was charged and convicted of a “hostile act” — trying to steal a propaganda poster — against North Korea’s authoritarian government.

Shang’s reference to that highly controversial case clearly offended the judge, who noted that Warmbier was not caught taking pictures and videos of North Korean military installations, as her client did at the Naval Air Station in Key West.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37731035)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-97x6z3EH99Q/VJ32UZkuafI/AAAAAAAAAvk/uD9OdcyNkXU/w530-h530-n-rw/Hongwei%2527s%2BPhoto.jpg

http://hshanglaw.com/en/attorney-resume/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37731039)

It is all top secret shit we use to keep an eye on Cuba.

And TT is an idiot if he thinks you can fly a spy plane above a Navy base lol.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4195058&forum_id=2#37736899)