Mass. Court Says Constitution Protects Filming On-Duty Police 473
Even in a country and a world where copyright can be claimed as an excuse to prevent you from taking a photo of a giant sculpture in a public, tax-paid park, and openly recording visiting police on your own property can be construed as illegal wiretapping, it sometimes seems like the overreach of officialdom against people taking photos or shooting video knows no bounds. It's a special concern now that seemingly everyone over the age of 10 is carrying a camera that can take decent stills and HD video. It's refreshing, therefore, to read that a Federal Appeals Court has found unconstitutional the arrest of a Massachusetts lawyer who used his phone to video-record an arrest on the Boston Common. (Here's the ruling itself, as a PDF.) From the linked article, provided by reader schwit1: "In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the wiretapping statute under which Glik was arrested and the seizure of his phone violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights."
I really really hope this is appealed (Score:4, Interesting)
All the way to the Supreme Court, and we can have a final ruling that recording public officials in public is, you know, legal.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll never permit that to happen. No, it'll get settled with a victory in some lower level court that won't matter. You can't appeal if you win.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Depends on what charges the cop stands to face, or how big a dick the state's lawyer is.
If they don't appeal, the law is what this Appeals court just decided it is.
And just from reading TFA it looks like this court based its opinion on other decisions, so it's unlikely things are going to go the other way.
Expect the state to let this rest. The legislature who passed this law, and the governor who signed it*, fucked up.
* - I bet it was Romney. He seems like the sort of constipated dickhead who'd think prev
Re:I really really hope this is appealed (Score:4, Informative)
Unless we're living in Bizarro World, the cop's not going to get charged with anything. Why would the DA punish one of his own thugs? A more likely scenario, if the law is eventually held unconstitutional, is that the cop in question might draw a civil suit under 42 USC 1983 (establishes civil liability for those who violate the civil rights of others "under color of law"), but it'd probably settle out for the cost of the phone stolen and Court costs incurred, which can be billed to the taxpayers. Either way, everyone's getting off essentially scot-free.
Re:I really really hope this is appealed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would the DA punish one of his own thugs?
DA's are elected. Cops aren't.
Re:I really really hope this is appealed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If there's one thing I've learned from watching 10,000 cop procedurals, it's that if the DA dares charge even en ex-cop with anything, all the other cops will "lose" evidence resulting in a 0% conviction rate, and then he won't get reelected because he'll seem incompetent.
"I saw it on Law and Order, so it must be true!"
You do realize how ridiculous that sounds?
TV Shows are not real. Even the ones "ripped from the headlines."
Re:I really really hope this is appealed (Score:5, Funny)
If there's one thing I've learned from watching 10,000 cop procedurals
There isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Cops basically live their entire lives under suspicion of either maliciously offending the public or negligently shirking their duty. They're also responsible for evidence and accurate descriptions of what happened. The paperwork is a nightmare, and tiny errors can let real crooks go free (modulo the quality of their defense attorney).
Re:I really really hope this is appealed (Score:4, Insightful)
They have to pull barges now?
By the context of your comment, I suspect you meant toeing the line.
Or maybe TV doesn't reflect reality all that much?
That may be the understatement of the decade.
Don't 'educate' yourself via TV, it will FUBAR your mind.
Re:oops (Score:5, Informative)
You're still off a bit. This case is more recent, circa 2007. It references a 1983 law and cases which brought the law into existence as well as recent cases that drive the point home. but the case comes from actions that happened on October 1 2007.
However, this isn't about whether the cops did wrong or not with this ruling. It's about whether they believed they were in the right at the time of the actions. You see, many law enforcement and government officials have an immunity to prosecution and civil suits if their actions were intended to be lawful but are somehow not. An example of this in action would be a cop speeding with his lights and sirens on to get to an accident scene and render assistance and getting into an accident of his own. He would be removed from liability for the accident and insurance would take care of property damage. But if he was speeding like that to get back to the station for shift change, then he's liable for all the crap you or i would be liable for should be do the same.
So the guy involved filed a suit, the cops said- we have immunity-, the judge said no you do not-, they appealed-, the appeals court said, not only do you not have immunity, there is good reason to believe you knew you were violating the constitutional rights of this kid when you took the actions you did.
The title of this story is a bit misleading. While the appeals court said there is a right to film police in public while on duty, it said so in the respect that the lawsuit against the police can go forward. But on another note, it pointed to where this constitutional right to film the cops has already been well settled by other case law and indicates that any law attempting to suppress it would meet the same problems their claim to immunity met.
Re: (Score:3)
Hate to reply to myself, but a little more research shows that the law in question was originally passed in 1959.
If the identity of the signing governor is really important, he was Foster Furcolo (D).
Note that the law was first put into place to prevent abuse by the police of wiretapping, due to improvements in technology that made wiretapping simpler....
Re:I really really hope this is appealed (Score:5, Informative)
They'll never permit that to happen. No, it'll get settled with a victory in some lower level court that won't matter. You can't appeal if you win.
You should have read the fine article. It is amazingly strong. This was not about a guy being arrested and then found innocent in court. This is about a guy suing the police for being arrested and winning the case.
First, the judge said that the right to film a police officer, or any other official, while doing their duty in a public state is so evidently guaranteed by the First Amendment that the judge doesn't even have to refer to any case law. And it is so clearly legal that any police officer arresting you for it is not just making a mistake, but breaking the law.
Second, the judge said that the Massachusetts wiretapping law is about _secretly_ recording. Interestingly, it has nothing to do with the police's right to privacy or not, and nothing to do with consent to the recording, but the only important thing in Massachusetts law is whether the recording is done secretly or not. So a secret recording could be illegal. An open recording, like this man did, with a phone in open view of the police men, is absolutely legal. And it is so obviously legal that a policeman arresting you for wiretapping in this situation is not just making a mistake, but breaking the law.
So what we learn: You can record a policeman doing his job in a public place, but you have to do it openly.
Re:I really really hope this is appealed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Specifically, the state won't risk applying for a writ of cert on this because it's a bad test case for it. For this to get to the Supreme Court, you'll need either a stupid prosecutor (or one doing the wrong thing institutionally), a set of facts more favorable to the police, or a decision going the other way on the appeals court level.
Re: (Score:3)
If the supreme course declines to hear an appeal or it is not appealed , it does become binding caselaw within the first circuit
and damn persuasive everywhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
Which judgement did you read? See footnote 2 on page 7.
Although the City of Boston is formally included in the
caption to this appeal, the parties agree that the City has no
right to immediate interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified
immunity, as it did not -- and could not -- assert such a defense.
See Walden v. City of Providence, 596 F.3d 38, 55 n.23 (1st Cir.
2010). In referring to the appellants, then, we refer only to the
individual defendants appealing the denial of qualified immunity.
Mind you, this isn't really about the case - this is just legal wrangling to see if the officers can use the defence of ignorance to squash the entire case from the outset. As the second paragraph on page 5 notes, they have to get the argument about this out of the way before they can get into arguing the actual case about whether a violation occured.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's still a pretty important statement for the First Circuit to say that the right to film police action in public is *clearly established* First Amendment law. Not only in terms of how the case winds up, but because most cases like this will involve a defense of qualified immunity.
Re:I really really hope this is appealed (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially since actions taking place in public do not have participants with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
It is one of the meanings of the word "public".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I really really hope this is appealed (Score:5, Interesting)
If the government thinks it's necessary to record my overseas phone calls me and touch my junk at airports in order to stop terrorism, then the natural conclusion is that the government needs to be equally open. It consists of the same kind of people as me, just as (un)likely to be terrorists. Therefore, I need to see what they are doing. No more secret meetings. No more closed negotiations. No more situations that I can't record what's happening to me. In a democracy we don't have a separate ruling class with different privileges.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're using definitions at odds with both common usage and political theory.
We have a Democratic Republic, one of the many forms of Democracy.
Re:I really really hope this is appealed (Score:5, Interesting)
All the way to the Supreme Court, and we can have a final ruling that recording public officials in public is, you know, legal.
You don't need it to go that far. I can't see any city or state wanting to contest this much higher, in light of the fact that the ruling was pretty clear. It was after all, just the officers that contested it this far. They didn't have any governmental backing, and the Boston Municipal court had already bitch slapped the officers down and dismissed all charges. I just don't see those guys having the financial backing to go much further.
Unless some other circuit rules contrary, this is the precedent that will be cited country wide.
Re: (Score:3)
Until there is a decision by another Circuit, this ruling serves as precedent for the entire country.
ONLY if a different circuit rules contrary is there any need for SCOTUS to get involved. Its very rare for you to have one right in one part of the country and a lesser right in another. It does happen, but such things are quickly appealed. The equal protection clause (14th) has long since been applied to the Federal level as well as original state level. There is no other Appeals court ruling as directly
and so they learn (Score:5, Insightful)
The police just learned an important lesson: Don't charge lawyers with the stupid rules you use to get away with shit.
Re:and so they learn (Score:5, Insightful)
More or less, the legal system in the US has gotten to the point where you really need to be a lawyer in order to understand when you're breaking the law.
Re:and so they learn (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what we get for electing so many lawyers to write the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
and we hire the lobbyists.
stop buying gasoline if you don't like them.
or at least stop buying so much gasoline [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Contrary to what GP said, it is not like "hiring programmers to program". A better simile is: it's like hiring people who use word processors or PowerPoint to program. The fact that a lawyer might be good at using the legal system does not imply that he or she would be any good at all at building or maintaining one, any more than a t
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine more engineers than lawyers value indentation, curly braces, and text-based version control. In my experience legal text reads just like any other algorithm, but the implementation language is terribly suited!
Re:and so they learn (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to understand when you're breaking the law, but when you're not breaking the law. And more importantly, it requires a lawyer to get out from any repercussions. Because while we laymen may not be breaking the law and know it, they can still harass us and make our lives difficult. And the only ones who are even remotely capable of defending themselves from that kind of behavior are lawyers. And even then, it still takes an ungodly amount of time, effort, and expenses.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I can't recall where I heard this, though I spent some time trying to tease that out with google the other day, but it's really a great tool for understanding what happens anymore:
The poor and middle class live under the rule of law, while the rich rule by law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:and so they learn (Score:5, Interesting)
Many judges have deep and long lasting friendships with the lawyers that appear before them.
In my community, a few years a judge (now dead) heard cases where the best man at his wedding was the defense lawyer.
One day, the judge made a ruling that the defense lawyer did not like. The defense lawyer--on the record--accused the judge of being biased against him (because he was bending over too far backward to be fair). The lawyer then left the courtroom in a huff.
What did the judge do? Did he get a fucking clue and disqualify himself from the case? Noooooo. The judge ran out into the parking lot and brought the lawyer back into the courtroom. The judge then reversed his decision.
This kind of thing is not rare.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone who thinks the courts in the USA are as crooked as any third world country is wrong. They're heavily stacked in favor of the wealthy as a consequence of allowing people to select their own representation, combined with a respect for status among members of the bar. But they are, for the most part, not bribed by the rich every time the rich get a parking ticket, for example. When you call a law firm in the United States, chances are the law firm is not paying off the judge. That's not true in a lo
Re:and so they learn (Score:5, Insightful)
The SCOTUS does have a member that is effectively being bribed. Clarance Thomas
His defense is that he would be as rabidly pro corporate if his wife was not receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from people with issues before him.
Scalia and Kagan also have some questionable income sources, but not as egregious as Thomas.
Replacing Thomas with someone like Judge Bork [wikipedia.org] might not change the decisions of the court much, but would greatly reduce the appearance of corruption.
But, the perception of the US Congress being bought and paid for might be reduced more by increasing the number of members of the House of Representatives to much closer to the constitutional limit of no more than one representative per 30,000 people (excluding native amercians) [wikipedia.org]. The current number of 435 representatives is arbitrary and fixed to maximize the power of individual representatives. would reduce the need for legislative aides, reduce campaign expenses and allow people to run for congress by knocking on their neighbors doors.
So, yes, America has a veneer of legitimacy over our government, but if you think the average American has more say over his/her government than the average African, you might be unpleasantly surprised.
Re: (Score:3)
With the quantity of laws, their illegal obfuscation, and the ongoing compromise of our education system, we're already well past that point.
Why come you got no tattoo?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen this problem all the time in my civil right practice. Most of the time it's LEOs arresting someone for disorderly conduct without knowing that the First Amendment trumps the state criminal statute in almost all cases except those where the person is practically inciting a riot.
Great News! (Score:5, Interesting)
That makes me optimistic, if we see a shift in the law accompanied by the reasonable expectation that *anyone* could potentially be carrying a recoding device, perhaps we will see a moderation in police behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only can anyone have a recording device, but with the new utilities the recorded data is being instantly streamed to not only a safe site but potentially facebook, youtube or other web sites as an upload in realtime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Cited [franklinpapers.org]
Re:Great News! (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation Needed.
Frankly a single instance of a cop using either illegal coercion or force on a citizen who is only suspected of a crime is an unwelcome sight in a country that aspires to rule of law and liberty.
Re:Great News! (Score:4, Insightful)
If criminals--real hardened criminals who would blast a hole in your liberal head for your wallet--knew that cops were totally bound to the rules, there'd be a lot more crime out there. It's reality, sorry to say.
Like the threat of violence stops them? They go out there no knowing they could get the death penalty and yet still do the crimes. The "real hardened criminals" are sociopaths and will not stop doing their crimes just because they may be beaten/shot/killed. Using them as a justification for police violence is akin to using the threat of terrorism to take away our civil liberties.
Re: (Score:3)
"It must be said, though, that to do their job in the real world, police do have to occasionally cajole and threaten people into confessing."
Complete and ustter bullshit, the police must follow the law as everyone does. There is absolutely no justifiaction for such actions, and it says a lot about you that you agree with them.
Re:Great News! (Score:5, Interesting)
Being a former Marine myself, I can speak on this subject with some experience.
First, Marines are indoctrinated from the very beginning that harming civilians -- aka "collateral damage" -- is something to be avoided as much as is humanly possible. Expecting perfect, rational judgment by everyone, everywhere, all the time, while having bullets zipping past you and RPG's exploding a few yards away is unrealistic, but the deliberate fragging of a civilian is not only frowned upon, it's considered cowardly, dishonorable, and unbecoming of a Marine. Contrary to popular opinion, the U.S. military doesn't want a bunch of bullies running around with rank and weapons. Boot camp exists to weed out the weak *and* the morally questionable types. Some slip through; no system is perfect. But the *intention* is this kind of "person" never makes it to a point where he can be a power-tripping, gun-toting threat to an otherwise-harmless civilian.
That being said, I personally know of many instances in Iraq and Afghanistan where enemy combatants -- not in uniform, thus indistinguishable from civilians -- pretend to surrender, even going so far as to carry white flags. When Marines try to accept their surrender, they drop the flag and open fire, or their buddies open fire from concealed positions elsewhere. The use of women and children as human shields is the norm, not the exception. There are instances where women and children have turned up dead in areas where no Allied forces have operated, yet their deaths are blamed on Allied forces, the 7.62mm bullets in their bodies blamed on Allied troops wielding clandestine AK-47's instead of the 5.56mm NATO rounds in our M4's. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to divine there's probably more than a little "embellishment" coming from an opposition that knows civilian casualties cause all sorts of bad press for Western forces when a sympathetic press picks up and carries such photos without ever bothering to find out the circumstances under which they were obtained.
I agree with you that any Marine, soldier, sailor, or airman who willingly, knowingly, maliciously kills -- or attempts to kill -- an unarmed, non-threatening civilian is deserving of the harshest punishment the UCMJ can mete out and then some. Such actions tarnish all of us and make a difficult mission even harder. That said, do not be so quick to rush to judge the Marine and idolize the reporter. There's a lot more to the story than can be communicated in a headline. Never forget a reporter's best interests are served by stories that generate the maximum amount of controversy, whether that controversy is deserved or not. Unless you were there, in the room, and knew everything that the Marine knew when he pulled the trigger, you know nothing more than what the reporter told you. Knowing half the facts is often worse than knowing none of them.
Semper Fi
Re: (Score:3)
Those magic bullets are everywhere.
http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/blog/link/like-a-suppository-only-stronger/ [thedissidentfrogman.com]
Watch the video for a laugh.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And how do you know that the people you shoot are those ominous "you and yours"? You seem to adhere to the "kill them all, let God sort them out" school of warfare.
To be perfectly honest (and despite my above posting about LEOs):
In a war, the only things that should be "illegal" are those things that cause lasting environmental damage, such as nukes and biological weapons.
I mean, seriously... if we're at war, then we're at the point where we are KILLING PEOPLE to make our point.
With that in mind, when we declared war on any of the countries we have recently been at war with, (in my opinion) we should have:
Re:Great News! (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely, 100% I would prefer them dead to abusing due process.
Re: (Score:3)
... and I take it dead strawmen are your preference?
Re:Great News! (Score:5, Insightful)
Dead cops and dead marines is your preference, coward?
Honestly? I think there's more than enough cops. Way too many, if you ask me.
Think about it for a minute. How many "law enforcement" agencies have jurisdiction over you where you sit right now? "Just a few", you might think... Let's count, then, shall we?
We'll assume, for the sake of argument, that you live inside a major city. We will also only count the offices that can legally break into your house with "probable cause", and maintain staff trained and equipped for exactly that.
1: City Police
2: County Police (Sheriff)
3: State Police
4: Federal Marshals
5: FBI
Nothing surprising so far, right?
6: Border Patrol (in a surprising large number of places that aren't actually near a "border")
7: Department of Homeland Security
8: Drug Enforcement Agency
9: Internal Revenue Service (yes, they maintain personnel for "active" law enforcement duties)
10: Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
11: Public School District Police Department ("Resource" Officers - yes, they are real police, and yes, they can break into your house to arrest you)
12: Local College Police Department (see above)
13: Highway Patrol (admittedly a bit of a stretch, but there are several circumstances where it is perfectly legal and within their jurisdiction to "assist" in a raid or otherwise break into your home)
So in this list, there are twelve agencies (thirteen if you want to count "edge cases") that, without a doubt, are capable of breaking into your home to arrest you. These are just the ones that have jurisdiction and authority to break into your private residence, regardless of its location within the United States, to "detain" you. There are also plenty of localized "special task forces" that can be granted "the duties and privileges of rank pertaining to" law enforcement officers, if they don't already have them, for the special purpose of terrorizing^W protecting citizens. Shiny badges and guns seem to make lots and lots of people more than a little power-mad.
To make it worse, there are agencies such as the New London, Connecticut Police Department, who require their officers to be unintelligent in order to make them more likely to follow orders without thinking, and "less likely to get bored".
Youtube is full of normal, law-abiding folks who have been killed or seriously injured by those charged to protect and serve, with little or no provocation. One of my favorite clips is a Boston Area Rapid Transit Officer shooting a man in the back while he is face down on the ground in handcuffs. A favorite headline of mine is the man who died falling from a second story ledge after being tazed by law enforcement officers. Another of my favorite stories is the school resource officer who tazed a fourteen-year-old girl who wasn't even being threatening, she just wasn't doing exactly what she was told quite quickly enough.
There's plenty of reason for ordinary, average, law-abiding citizens to hate and fear law enforcement officers. We get new ones every day. How much fear, uncertainty, and doubt can this institution resist?
I, for one, applaud "dead cops and dead marines" when they overstep their bounds while applying deadly force. Enforcing the law does not place one above it.
Also, I wonder how long it will be before the surveillance society we live in is "good enough" that an audio/video record of any given subject will be available for anything and everything that person has done in the past [24 hours|7 days|30 days|ever in their life]... more importantly, is that a bad thing? Could we do away with [some|most|all] of the law enforcement [officers|agencies] at that point?
As for being a coward... well, say it to my face.
(Yes, the irony is implicit, and the internet is full of tough guys).
--
I may sound paranoid, but is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?
Re: (Score:3)
"In the real world, soldiers can't always follow rules of engagement strictly"
Yeh we notice the huge number of civilians killed by US troops "accidentally"
Ther eis never any justification for police behaving illegally.
You are really fucked in the head you know.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes they are going to be wrong, and we're going to see a whole lot of that in footage, analyzed thoroughly over days, when the officers in question had only milliseconds to make their analysis.
You hit upon a salient point with this sentence: sometimes, people in positions of authority must act quickly, without all the facts, or without hours (or days) of time to mull over all the possible permutations and implications of an action that *must* be taken -- usually when lives are at stake. Sometimes, those decisions are going to be wrong. I'm all for cutting people slack for making a bad call if they were trying to do the right thing. Shit happens. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. Hindsigh
Re:Great News! (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been a couple of cases of the internets picking up on a police officer making a wrong call that was an understandable mistake (such as a plain-clothed off duty officer pulling a gun on a motorcyclist). But by far what show up are genuine abuses: officers ruthlessly beating compliant suspects while surveillance cam operators intentionally look the other way. Unarmed men lying on the floor in a prone position getting shot in the back. Rodney King, which reflected the abusive police interactions in LA at the time. Or even this interpretation of this law itself, where your only protection against abuses is considered illegal on a BS technicality. And these show up in the destruction of evidence (collecting cell phones) and denial of evidence (the surveillance camera footage).
Personally, I think we do give officers a lot of moderated attitude. A friend had a gun pulled on him at a (15 mph) speeding stop by a trainee officer. The elder officer overseeing her pulled her aside, taught her proper procedure, and let my friend off with a non-documented warning. It was a completely non-procedure way of dealing with an officer drawing her gun without provocation, but it was handled well. I had a gun drawn on me for having a broken white plastic Halloween samurai sword as a teenager. But the professionalism of the officer never made me feel in danger.
A lot of these officers are not used to being on the internet. They're not used to the level of abuse where if 10,000 people are calling for the immediate dismemberment of you and your family, you're doing fine. Someone makes a flash video of you beating down dancing flower children, it pretty much goes with the territory. Unfortunately, most people don't have a thick enough skin for the internet, and it is sad that this may be their first exposure (except the beating down of the dancing flower children cop. That guy deserved it.)
95% of the officers I've interacted with have been professional, helpful (or at least trying to be), and safety-conscious. But some are abusive when they think they can get away with it, and the only protection we have is documentation. The moment we lose the right to document our interactions with the police, is the moment the police go from helpful to a threat. And that puts everyone, civillians and police, at risk.
Re:Great News! (Score:4, Insightful)
such as a plain-clothed off duty officer pulling a gun on a motorcyclist
I'm going to assume you're talking about the motorist in Maryland. What was the "understandable mistake" that justified pulling a gun? You never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. I've pointed a gun at one human being in my life - a guy wearing a ski mask in 55 degree F (13 C for you across the pond) weather who was at my back gate and trying to get in.
Re: (Score:3)
citing out of date material is misleading. (Score:2)
re: "Even in a country and a world where copyright can be claimed as an excuse to prevent you from taking a photo of a giant sculpture in a public, tax-paid park,"
that policy for Millennium Park was removed, permits are only required for filming crews 10 persons or larger.
Missed one... (Score:5, Interesting)
You are missing the recent case in Rochester [huffingtonpost.com] where a woman was arrested on her own front lawn for videotaping an arrest going on just off of her property. IIRC the D.A. decided to not bring the case to trial, but the police continued to harass the woman and a demonstration held against the arrest. There was also a news conference with one of those great police organisations going off about how the video recording makes them "less safe."
What bollocks... if the tables were turned you know the police would scream that there was no expectation of privacy on a public street... and the woman was standing on her very own lawn.
Re:Missed one... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't lose your rights by being a pain in the ass. The legitimacy of her case is untouched by her being a loud protester of all trades.
Re:Missed one... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you cry wolf enough times
Perhaps she wasn't lying but was merely acting upon causes that she found worthy. Just because you disagree with some of her actions doesn't mean that she was lying.
Re: (Score:3)
Ask Frank Serpico.
Re:Missed one... (Score:4, Insightful)
good cops often choose to cover up for bad cops. Why, I'm not sure
I am not generally a fan of cops. However, they do a difficult and occasionally dangerous job (though it's a lot less dangerous than many would have you believe). When they send out the call for "officer needs assistance", they don't want to end up like Russell Crowe's character in American Gangster with "no officers available to help".
Always love to see the Slashdot spin (Score:3)
With respect to the sculpture in Chicago, the "don't photograph with permission of the sculptor" statement was specifically with regard to commercial photography since the sculptor retained copyright on his work. I'm not actually sure even that would stand up in court, since it's a public space (just like you don't need permission to photograph people in a public space, even though it's still a good idea) - however I can understand the thinking behind it.
With regard to the police arresting Michael Gannon for "wiretapping", they returned his equipment when they figured out they didn't have a legal leg to stand on (apparently he's still waiting to get the tapes back though). I agree the Nashua N.H. police need better training - as well as someone to teach them how to behave professionally, even when dealing with slimeballs - but the summary makes it sound like what they did was legally supportable in the United States, when obviously it's not.
This is one of the reasons people should be reading newspapers, or at least spending five minutes Googling for information when stuff like this comes up - so many people have trouble separating truth from internet memes because they don't bother to read past the headline.
Re:Always love to see the Slashdot spin (Score:4, Informative)
With respect to the sculpture in Chicago, the "don't photograph with permission of the sculptor" statement was specifically with regard to commercial photography since the sculptor retained copyright on his work. I'm not actually sure even that would stand up in court, since it's a public space (just like you don't need permission to photograph people in a public space, even though it's still a good idea) - however I can understand the thinking behind it.
Don't photograph X in public place because copyright is held on X should NOT stand up in court.
HOWEVER, the ability to publish the photograph could reasonably be argued as copyright infringement without the sculptors permission if the photograph is deemed a derivative work. (which if the sculpture was the subject of the photograph is not unreasonable).
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the restriction was applied based on equipment. If you had a nice camera, you were assumed to be a professional taking a for-profit picture. That was the problem: enforcement of the copyright should have been done at profit level (find and shut down offenders), not at the pho
The Supreme Court Corporate Five (Score:2, Insightful)
Will likely have a different opinion. To them the constitution only applies to corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
With so many calls for constitutional amendments for irrelevant things I still can't understand why there is no movement for an amendment to end this abomination called corporate personhood.
Where's the fallout? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue here is "government violates the law with impunity and nobody cares."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when is the arresting officer going to be charged with violating the civil rights of the videographer?
When the videographer gets around to it.
Re: (Score:3)
That is what this decision is! The title of the suit is:
SIMON GLIK,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
JOHN CUNNIFFE, in his individual capacity; PETER J. SAVALIS, in
his individual capacity; JEROME HALL-BREWSTER, in his individual
capacity; CITY OF BOSTON,
Glik is filing a law suit against the officers individually and the city of Boston alleging a violation of his civil rights. The defendants claimed that the officers have qualified immunity and are not subject to a law suit. The appellate court has said here that "No, yo
Federal Court - Big difference (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a Massachusetts court. This is a federal court that actually knows what the 1st Amendment is, and more importantly thinks that it matters. The Supreme Judicial Court, which is the Massachusetts high court, has had its chance to look at this law more than once, and has come to the wrong conclusion every time. It took a federal court to realize what any moron should know - that prohibiting citizens from recording public officials doing their jobs on a public street is an invitation to abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't as significant as people are making out (Score:5, Informative)
This ruling is in line with Comm v. Hyde. There is NOTHING new about this ruling, at least regards the recording issue. There is nothing wrong with OPENLY recording cops in MA or anyone else who are speaking in normal voice in public. By being in public, they are forfeiting their privacy. This is inline with 4th Amendment thinking.
In technical terms, the above is 3rd party recording that is not considered 3rd party eavesdropping because there is no REP (reasonable expectation of privacy).
Now, what this ruling DOES bring as new is the cops who think that they have veto power over your OPEN recording of them are now on notice, in federal court you have zero shelter from the liability of arresting someone because you don't like that they are recording you in public. This is new. The cops are not being granted qualified immunity and are on the hook for the damages of denying Glik his rights by improperly arresting him. That is a step in the right direction.
The problem here is if you are recording your interaction with a cop, what does that cop have to do to stop your recording? "Detain" you, that is what. Once they do, for their "safety" of course, they now control your recording equipment and can turn it off. Nothing in the above ruling changes this. They can do this, beat you to a pulp, or just ignore you to illustrate both extremes, and there will be no record of it.
What has not changed is Comm v. Hyde which makes 2nd party recording a privacy issue. This is not the case in 38 other states but here in MA, people are presumed to have a REP right from secret recording even when the recorders are privy to what is being said. That is absurd if you dissect it, but that is where Hyde dropped us. So for an example, if party A has a conversation with B, A can't record it because B supposedly has a REP privacy right yet A has heard everything B said. They were having a conversation for christ's sake. B gave up their privacy to the statements once they engaged in said conversation. So A can detail the conversation to whomever will listen but if B denies what was said or that the conversation even took place, it becomes a he said, she said situation. Now, who does this protect? It protects B. It protects liars, cheats and thieves. Because it allows them to lie about what took place. There is a line in Hyde where the SJC basically acknowledges this by stating to allow surreptitious recording of cops will allow the citizens to monitor and find corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
So for an example, if party A has a conversation with B, A can't record it because B supposedly has a REP privacy right yet A has heard everything B said. They were having a conversation for christ's sake. B gave up their privacy to the statements once they engaged in said conversation. So A can detail the conversation to whomever will listen but if B denies what was said or that the conversation even took place, it becomes a he said, she said situation. Now, who does this protect? It protects B. It protects liars, cheats and thieves. Because it allows them to lie about what took place.
Interesting comments although I disagree with the above. It is perfectly reasonable to not want part of a conversation to be recorded without your knowledge or consent. Privacy does not stop at one individual - a conversation between two people can also be private.
I also think you have an unrealistic view of human relationships if you think that the constant threat of secret recording wouldn't make our interactions awkward at best, and unmanageable at worst.
For example, you might in a private conversation
I hope that the fascist Nazi Rat-fuck.. (Score:3)
And the state of Mass get sued for so much that the people finally see the reign of terror that is being visited on the American people is un-American and un-sustainable!
If you must video police... (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL but reading the ruling made it clear to me that in states where wiretapping laws imply that it be done secretly then it's important to hold your recording device in plain sight. Many states define audio wiretapping in terms of "intercepting" the audio which this appellate court has determined to mean "secretly". The ruling states that since Glik was holding his cell phone in plain view then he was not doing anything in secret and thus was not wiretapping. You don't have to annouce that you are taking pictures or videos, however. Just holding it where the officers could have seen it is sufficient. But if they ask you if you are taking videos or pictures or recording then you should probably answer truthfully. YMMV so check your state's laws before relying on this ruling.
Of course, if officers cannot see it they would be unlikely to arrest you. So apparently just by them noticing the device would be evidence that it was not done in secret and therefore not wiretapping and therefore not "probable cause" for an arrest.
Who will watch the watchers? (Score:3)
Huzzah.
A victory for the following states (Score:5, Informative)
According to the Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_First_Circuit [wikipedia.org]
The states covered by the USCoA for the First Circuit are:
District of Maine
District of Massachusetts
District of New Hampshire
District of Puerto Rico
District of Rhode Island
How about "in-flight recorders" for cops (Score:3)
I've long thought that police officers should be required to carry video and/or audio recorders (portable radios already exist that have that feature) that continuously record their actions, and that any interactions with the public that are captured by those recorders have to be made public if the person recorded requests it or it was highly in the public interest (a judge would have to rule on that).
Re: (Score:3)
Your right to speak stops at your neighbor's earplugs.
Especially if that voice isn't a fellow citizen, but a government that wants to indoctrinate you.
I have as much right to open my mouth as you do to close your ears.
Re:constitution also protects: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:constitution also protects: (Score:5, Interesting)
I know my taxes aren't buying any type of civilization in the middle east, despite the trillions going there. In fact, my tax dollars are doing the exact opposite by creating anarchy, pollution, death, and destruction. If those things are the hallmarks of civilization, well, you can keep it.
Most everything you list is a local function BTW. Maybe the world be a better and safer place if government was not allowed to be so large. The scale of death and destruction my county could cause is a mere fraction of that my country is causing, and my county could still build roads and put out fires (I live in a donor state BTW, without the Feds, we'd have MORE money for these things than we do now).
Re: (Score:3)
"I know my taxes aren't buying any type of civilization in the middle east, despite the trillions going there. In fact, my tax dollars are doing the exact opposite by creating anarchy, pollution, death, and destruction. If those things are the hallmarks of civilization, well, you can keep it."
This IS a participatory democracy, you know.
Feel free to participate by instructing the Hired Help in D.C. as to your wishes for how your tax dollars are spent.
Feel free to participate by running for office locally.
Re:constitution also protects: (Score:5, Insightful)
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: 'I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization.'
Cute, but fallacious. SOME taxes buy civilization. Some are simply squandered. Some buy oppression, including of those who pay the taxes. Some buy wars we didn't need. There's also a lack of causality. If a building falls on you tomorrow, we still have civilization. Something like 50% of USians don't pay taxes (ok, federal income) and yet we still have way more government than many of us want. Those of you who don't think that are, in my not so humble opinion, just ignorant of how the sausage is made. It also assumes paying taxes is the only way to get civilization, or the best. It makes as much sense as "I like amputations. With them I remove splinters from my fingertips." or "I like chemotherapy. With it I slow or stop cancer." In both cases the end is great, but if there's a way to do it with fewer or no amputations, less or no chemotherapy, or lower or no taxes, that's obviously much better.
The no-nonsense version of this quote would be "I like civilization, and I accept some taxation as the price we have to pay for it."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:constitution also protects: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:constitution also protects: (Score:5, Insightful)
Private companies which are currently doing their best to unmake the Internet and turn it into an AOL redux.
Re: (Score:3)
This is about the dumbest argument I have ever heard for avoiding taxation!
Re: (Score:3)
But yet most of those things can be, and should be, provided by private enterprise and would be better suited to private enterprise.
Yes! I would love for the police and prisons to be more privatized! Please sign me up for this new order of corporatism! You so enthralled me with that that I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post t be bought hook, line, and sinker just like you!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Randroids [skitch.com] with mod points. As inevitable as death and taxes.
To answer the objection to that sig about taxes... taxation is done by force or threat of force. If you don't pay your taxes, armed men will come to take your assets eventually. If you resist these armed men, they will use force up to and including lethal force. We call them IRS agents or we call them police. In any other context this is known as robbery. The fact that the theft is legal and the proceeds taken by theft are often put to beneficial uses that serve a commn good does not change the fact th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
you can't force me to shut up.
So you can write what you want in my paper/blog/site/notebook/whatever?
Freedom of speech will always belong to the owners of the presses. A man in a totally privatised country has by default no voice at all, because he has no right to stand anywhere to speak. And a man in a country with some public land has his right to "free" speech limited to that land and under the regulations in force on that land.
For some reason this is obvious to anyone outside the US, but very hard to explain to anyone inside the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have a right to petition government for redress of grievances? Well, yes. Sorta. That was the idea, anyway. Still true, if you have the money to buy an ear. We call them `lobbyists'.
So, yeah. Some people have the right to be heard.
Re:typo? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:typo? (Score:4, Funny)
Someone who goes to cort
... and is not a yoot [youtube.com]