City of L.A. bans photography at public park. Violation of 1st amendment.

Full text from article:"Citing a contractual agreement with a band, Los Angeles recently banned photography at a free concert scheduled to be held at a public park. The order violates the Constitution, which protects any United States citizen's freedom of expression in the First Amendment. While a number of other high-profile run-ins with photographers taking photographs in public spaces have grabbed recent headlines, most cases involve a single government official (such as a police officer) demanding that photographs not be taken. Witnessing a city government — and a well-known one at that — creating its own rules in direct conflict with the United States Constitution is rare.Los Angeles warns that the policy to prohibit "video, photo and audio devices" from the Pershing Square event will be "strictly enforced due to contractual agreement." Of course, the point is that this is "contractual agreement" is one that the city does not have the power to make unless changes to the Constitution are made.Dictating limits on recording devices is completely legal on private property, but this concert was scheduled in a public space. Both the band and the city should understand they cannot and should not impose unlawful rules on the event.According to SLRLounge, Los Angeles Collegiate newspaper photographer Cliff Cheng brought this to the attention of the ACLU after he was denied a press pass and any kind of permission to cover the event. The ACLU has written a letter to the City of Los Angeles, "urging it to adhere to the Constitution."What do you think of Los Angeles' policy? Would you shoot the event regardless, or would you listen to the city's and the band's request not to photograph or record the public event?"Thoughts? I think they pretty much guaranteed they will be overrun by photographers. Maybe that was the plan? via /r/photography http://ift.tt/2vFThTH