What happens to our rights in public-private parks?

I had the opportunity to chat face-to-face with former CM Lynn Williams at an online news conference a couple of weeks ago. Our chatter involved local politics, guns in bars, smartphones, and private parks.

It was the latter topic that especially sparked my curiosity. During a conference session on legal issues in recording news events on smartphones, the legality of shooting footage on public vs. private space came up. That spurred the following tweet from Lynn:

At the end of the session we met up, and she elaborated on her point. She had in mind Harding Academy's acquisition of private property to build a public park for its own athletics program. Since the "public" park is actually privately-owned, would someone recording a news event there have to get consent from the school to share that footage? A chronicler or reporter can legally record news on public property without permission, but when s/he sets foot on private property, consent must be attained. Thus, if I videotaped a Harding parent assaulting another parent's kid on Harding's ballfield, consent seems a murky issue, even with public park permits.

I replied to Lynn that the same problem arises with Belmont University's lease of Metro Nashville's Rose Park to build its baseball, softball, and soccer fields over the heads of neighborhood protests. While the hyper-locals are concerned about traffic, zoning, and open meetings, another problem that arises is the question of consent to record news events in Rose Park while Belmont is exercising its lease rights. Metro may be so cash strapped that it has to offer public park space to high bidders, but the question of whether we can video- or audio-record events that unfold on privately reserved land without Belmont's consent becomes more murky (granted, I'm not a lawyer).

The underlying squeeze here is the often vaunted, infrequently examined notion of public-private partnerships. While that amalgam may provide new opportunities to pool resources and reduce replication of services, it seems to become a sticky mishmash of legal problems for free individuals who intend to exercise their rights of expression in public space while respecting privacy rights. Those who try to document and record events that unfold in their communities must become more attuned to the obstacles erected by public-private partnerships. We ignore them at our own peril.

Another Privatized Government Security Breach in Nashville

This one involves the U.S. Attorney's Office and private contractor Policy Studies Inc.

The "Democratic" Congress Joined the President to Sell Us Down the River

Democrats abdicate and compromise Americans' right to redress grievances and violations through the court system to George W. Bush and Big Telecom. As always, AT&T wins, and I have to assume that our own Blue Dog Congressman Jim Cooper (a "Joe Lieberman" by any other name?) has been promoting this "compromise" for his big-ticket constituents in the Batman Building:

The proposal allows a district judge to examine what are believed to be dozens of written directives given by the Bush administration to the phone companies after the Sept. 11 attacks authorizing them to engage in wiretapping without warrants. If the court finds that such directives were in fact provided to the companies that are being sued, any lawsuits “shall be promptly dismissed,” the proposal says.

Even Democratic officials, who had initially opposed giving legal immunity to the phone companies, conceded there was a high likelihood that the lawsuits would have to be dismissed under the standards set out in the proposal. That possibility infuriated civil liberties groups, which said the cursory review by a district judge would amount to the de facto death of the lawsuits.

Residents Sue Google for Street View of their Home

I'm no barrister, but I'm inclined to believe that anyone has the legal right to travel on a public thoroughfare (like Google cars driving on a public street) and take pictures without permission. I don't see the violation of privacy here.


CORRECTION: As Anonymous points out, the road is in fact a private one not a public one, an important fact that I missed in my read. Hence, more of a case against Google, no?