IBJNews

Bill banning secret videotaping at businesses fails

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill that would make it illegal to secretly take videos or photographs that could make a business look bad failed Friday in the Indiana Legislature after debate over whether it would squelch whistleblowers trying to expose wrongdoing.

The Senate voted 29-21 in favor of the bill. But the House sponsor withdrew the measure a short time later after a floor debate during which several opponents argued it could lead to criminal charges against those trying to document unsafe working conditions or even customers who sent text messages about an unsanitary restaurant.

The bill would make it a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail to commit "an act ... with the intent to harm" a business on the property.

Bill sponsor Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle, said a few hours after the House debate that he wouldn't try to advance another version of the legislation.

Holdman said the bill was meant to protect factories, farms and other businesses from those who violated the owner's property rights.

"I don't think we really want to go to that place in our culture where we turn vigilantes loose with cameras going around doing the work of police and regulatory agencies," Holdman said.

House opponents of the bill called it a "gag all" measure that intruded on freedom of speech rights.

"People who are doing this and trying to whistleblow on danger should be rewarded for protecting lives, not threatened," said Rep. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend.

Rep. Thomas Saunders, R-Lewisville, said he worried the bill's provisions would make it illegal to visit a constituent in a nursing home and take photos if he saw unsafe conditions.

Rep. Bill Friend, R-Macy, disputed the contention that customers at a restaurant or retail business could face criminal charges, but said he withdrew the bill he sponsored at the request of Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma.

Earlier, Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, said he was troubled that the bill didn't protect people who did nothing misleading with the photos or videotapes.

"We ought not put people in jail for taking pictures, especially if the picture shows nothing but the truth, and if knowing the truth is in the public interest," Lanane said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Relief
    I'm relieved that this bill did not go further because it was designed specifically to protect businesses from being exposed for wrong doing. I am ashamed that this bill was even written and it just adds to the backwards view of Indiana. If a farm or factory has nothing to hide, they should not fear people taking pictures of videotaping. We cannot allow our representatives to create unlawful bills that protect businesses from whisteblowers. The GOP says it stands for the constitution, but apparently only when it is convenient for them. #1 Freedom of Speeach
  • Never a discouraging word
    It's already illegal to say anything bad about Indy, or panhandle, or do just about anything when there's a big convention in town. Why, it's almost as if the locals think everyone is as brain dead as they are.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT