Appeals Court: You Have the Right To Film the Police (arstechnica.com) 180
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A divided federal appeals court is ruling for the First Amendment, saying the public has a right to film the police. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in upholding the bulk of a lower court's decision against an activist who was conducting what he called a "First Amendment audit" outside a Texas police station, noted that this right is not absolute and is not applicable everywhere. The facts of the dispute are simple. Phillip Turner was 25 in September 2015 when he decided to go outside the Fort Worth police department to test officers' knowledge of the right to film the police. While filming, he was arrested for failing to identify himself to the police. Officers handcuffed and briefly held Turner before releasing him without charges. Turner sued, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful arrest and detention and his First Amendment right of speech. The 2-1 decision Thursday by Judge Jacques Wiener is among a slew of rulings on the topic, and it provides fresh legal backing for the so-called YouTube society where people are constantly using their mobile phones to film themselves and the police. A dissenting appellate judge on the case -- Edith Brown Clement -- wrote Turner was not unlawfully arrested and that the majority opinion from the Texas-based appeals court jumped the gun to declare a First Amendment right here because one "is not clearly established."
How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I totally support the right to record, whatever one can legally observe, I struggle to understand the commonly-used argument, that such making recordings — made silently and without expression — is somehow equivalent to speech.
Could someone, please, explain?
Re:How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because there's no talking doesn't mean it isn't speech. There are plenty of gestures that come to mind.
Furthermore, if I made a video of myself describing everything that I saw when something happened, you would consider that speech. So making a video of it actually happening would also be considered speech.
Speech is more about communication. That communication does not have to be done by talking.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point was more that making a video may not be speech, showing the video to someone else is speech.
Re: (Score:3)
In which case, stopping someone from making the video would be prior restraint of speech....
Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:5, Informative)
The US Supreme Court has ruled that gathering evidence in support of one's claims -- particularly against the government -- is an integral part of the freedoms of speech and seeking redress. There's a huge difference between someone saying "X happened, trust me" and "X happened, here's video proof", especially when X is something they governed clearly should not be doing.
That doesn't mean the right to record public servants is unqualified, but it's definitely broad.
Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:2)
"something the government" should not be doing. Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no, I don't think that's a valid explanation. For example, this guy — who merely wanted to gather exactly the evidence you are talking about — was convicted of "entering a federal building under false pretenses" [cbsnews.com]. By the logic you are putting forth, all his actions should be covered by the First Amendment...
Similarly, the computer hac
Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:2)
Those things are all crimes for reasons independent of the news-gathering function. In the instant case, the only reason police stopped the plaintiff was because he was recording video in a public place.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. I accept and wholeheartedly agree, that the guy's recording is legal and should've been unmolested.
I just don't see, how the First Amendment protects him in the slightest. Doing, what is not expressly prohibited by law is legal in a free country — you do not need it to be expressly allowed by an Amendment or anything else.
The only possible charge I could see is disobeying a police order — ha
Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:2)
The First Amendment protects him because any law that purported to prohibit what he was doing would be unconstitutional due to 1A protections of his rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, explain your line of reasoning. One-liners do not cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution lays out a separation of powers between the federal and state governments. It empowers the federal government to do certain things, leaving other powers to the states or to the people. States are assumed to have general police powers, subject only to constitutional constraints. With the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, certain constitutional rights are "incorporated" against states -- so that while the state might have used its police powers to do things like preve
Re: (Score:2)
What I do not understand — as should be obvious from the very title of my post — is how/why is filming considered in any way protected by (or even related to) the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are making the full circle, but let's try one more tim
Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:2)
I'm not going to repeat what I already told you.
Re: (Score:2)
Which was precisely nothing. Thank you.
Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:2)
Go back and read what I wrote earlier. It's not my fault that you don't understand simple English or how laws work.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should public servants expect a right to privacy in public places where I myself cannot expect it?
Or to put it in some of their own favorite words: If they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to fear. Given how deeply they believe that you should expect that their insistence against being recorded suggests that they do indeed have something to fear.
If they were really smart, they'd copyright the design of their uniforms and just prevent the distribution of such recordings under a DMCA claim.
Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:2)
Courts have generally held that public officials, like the general public, do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Courts have speculated (because the question was not before them) that police officers might have a reasonable expectation of privacy in particular places, such as inside parts of a police station, where members of the public would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reasons for that should be fairly clear. However, nothing in this case hinges on whether anyo
Re: (Score:3)
All the justices in Branzburg v. Hayes found that some kinds of newsgathering are protected by the First Amendment, although the court ruled that there was not an unqualified right of journalists to refuse to testify about what they knew. I don't know that any case's holding speaks directly to the question.
Re: (Score:3)
For additional citations, see also the US DOJ's amicus brief [aclupa.org] in a similar case before the 3rd Circuit. The core arguments start on page 18. (It doesn't look like the appeals court has ruled on that case yet, and I don't know when they will.)
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech, freedom after speech, freedom of the press to gather information for a story.
Also a person does not have to invoke their rights by "speaking" a word or requesting their rights every time they are out in public.
The police can attempt a chat down to request/demand/induce photo ID depending on the state.
Re:How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:5, Funny)
Woe to those who have taken a vow of silence.
Imagine if those who have taken a vow of celibacy had to fornicate just one little time to assert their right to remain celibate.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if those who have taken a vow of celibacy had to fornicate just one little time to assert their right to remain celibate.
That's called seminary school, and apparently, what happens there, stays there.
Re: (Score:2)
minor correction :
"That's called INseminary school, and apparently, what happens there, stays there."
Well, it might be just possible that it may present its' lingering after-effect in 9 months -lol-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Fifth Amendment doesn't give you the right to remain silent. It only protects you against self-incrimination.
You can be compelled to testify against someone else. Pleading the 5th won't get you out of that, if you refuse you can be held in contempt. The reason you have to actually plead the Fifth is because you are telling the court why you refuse to answer.
Re: (Score:3)
Judges can compel you to testify, just not against yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Judges can compel you to testify, just not against yourself.
They can "compel" you but they can't force you to say anything. You may or may not face penalties for it, but they can't make you speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap how pedantic can you be.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap how pedantic can you be.
How pedantic do you want me to be?
Unlike in many countries, in the US they can't torture you to make you speak or confess or incriminate yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
People can only torture you in those countries. They can't "make" you speak.
Re: (Score:2)
People can only torture you in those countries. They can't "make" you speak.
Wrong. When they shove a red hot poker up your ass, you'll speak.
Re:How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:4, Interesting)
An attorney told me that there is a difference between Asking and Ordering. Asking doesn't require an answer while Ordering does. LEOs can ask or order; the Citizen can respond appropriately.
That's right, and that's how so many cops get people to give them their ID when they actually have no right to get it. They do the "I need to see your ID" and they hold their fingers about 2 inches apart as if they were holding a driver's license. Most people will just hand it over without thinking. Not me. :)
They also do the, "Hey do me a favor and ....", but that carries no more weight than if I asked you to do something. For fuck's sake, they're asking for a favor (and saying so!), not giving you an order.
They can ask you anything they want, that doesn't mean you have to satisfy their request.
(Even if they order you to do something it doesn't necessarily mean you have to do it. That's a whole 'nother subject, though.)
When they tell me they "need" to see my ID in a situation where I'm not legally compelled to provide it, I tell them that their "needs" don't outweigh my "rights".
Re:How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:4, Insightful)
except....
in the US, you can LOSE YOUR LIFE if you go against a cop.
The same thing can be said about the guy that wants to beat you to the next stoplight or some schmuck standing in line behind you at the store.
So fuck it, I'm not gonna lay down and let them walk all over me. They can kiss my ass if they think they're going to trample my rights without any resistance. I'm a law-abiding citizen and I won't let my rights be chipped away or stripped away, by the police or anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
It is stupid, but mostly because of an excessively literal usage of the word "silent." Being legally "silent" doesn't mean you can't fart or ask to go to the washroom.
Likewise, vocalizing the phrase "I need to piss" doesn't necessarily count as "speech" as in the first amendment, because "speech" in that context is more about transfer of thoughts rather than strictly the act of using your mouth to form words.
Re:How is FILMING "speech"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment was created in a time when things like radio, television, the internet, etc. didn't exist and were perhaps beyond imagination. However, it's evident that the idea was ensure a freedom of expression, regardless of medium. I only wish they'd get the same fucking clue when it comes to the fourth amendment because computers and phones are pretty obviously covered by similar reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
So they're reinterpreting the constitution? Doesn't that lead to socialized medicine, death panels and compulsory gay marriage?
Re: (Score:3)
Because the First Amendment doesn't just protect speech, but also freedom of the press. If the press can't observe and gather evidence, it can't be particularly effective.
"Today's top story: the Government did stuff today. Probably. And now sports!"
Re: (Score:3)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Everyone calls the first amendment "free speech", but it also covers the press (aka, video recording), and peaceful demonstrating.
Re: (Score:2)
While I totally support the right to record, whatever one can legally observe, I struggle to understand the commonly-used argument, that such making recordings - made silently and without expression - is somehow equivalent to speech.
Could someone, please, explain?
It basically involves the idea of journalists gathering information for a story, and anyone, yes anyone can be a journalist.
You don't need credentials, you don't have to work for a news organization, period. Any citizen can be a journalist as per the 1st Amendment.
So, the upshot is that anyone can gather information for a story, whether they intend to publish it or not. And that means that anyone can video or record ANYTHING that can be seen from a public vantage point without exception. That includes publi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm old enough to remember when that was true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A far more important question that is a bit off topic is how the fuck are corporations considered persons?!?!?!
Texas Catch 22 Injustuce System (Score:2)
So crazy Texas judge says not legal precedent can be set because no legal precedent has be set, hmm, OK, stays well are from crazy as fuck Texas legal system.
Re: Texas Catch 22 Injustuce System (Score:3)
The question of whether the right is "clearly established" goes to whether the police get qualified immunity. If there was no clearly established right, they get qualified immunity, and don't have to stand trial. If the question goes to an appeals court, they are supposed to first determine whether the right exists -- after which it becomes clearly established, helping the next plaintiff -- and then whether it was clearly established before. They have to clearly establish whether the right exists before
Re: (Score:2)
"Clearly established" is not "just empty bullshit waffle". Read the court's ruling. It pretty clearly explains why the courts must grant qualified immunity if there is not "clearly established" law protecting what the plaintiff was doing. And, as the article here states and I said, the appeals court here did make a precedential rule that the right to record police is "clearly established" from this point forward (in the 5th Circuit). The dissent said they should not have set that precedent, which is def
Re: (Score:2)
Texas judges are known to be a little...eccentric.
https://thinkprogress.org/texa... [thinkprogress.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, and linking to think progress is the best example of a self-reinforcing echo chamber with a side of propaganda.
After all, one can see what happens when progressive replacements get into power. Laws? Nope, those are for little people. And illegals? No, those are "guests" who should just be set free. [judicialwatch.org] That also includes violent offenders who've committed murder, rapes and so on. I'm sure you're happy with that policy right? Who doesn't want a murderer simply released back on the street. Or putting
Re: (Score:3)
There is a video of the guy saying that Obama was going to lead the United Nations and invade Lubbock, Texas. You can ignore the "propaganda" and just listen to the judge in his own words if you are afraid of being infected by the dangerous thoughts of Think Progress..
I mean, I don't know if you've ever been to Lubbock, Texas, but don't nobody go there by choice.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a video of the guy saying that Obama was going to lead the United Nations and invade Lubbock, Texas. You can ignore the "propaganda" and just listen to the judge in his own words if you are afraid of being infected by the dangerous thoughts of Think Progress..
Having worked in Texas, it's very similar to working in Alberta. They've got a strong independent streak, and a similar belief that their place is theirs. You could have of course linked to the video without giving clicks to think progress though right? But you didn't. It's also not the "dangerous thoughts" it's the outright fabrications, lies by omission, quote mining and full-on narrative crafting that they engage in. They're a pure propaganda organization, and using them as any form of a source woul
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You're right. The Lubbock Opera House is one of the wonders of the civilized world.
Re: (Score:3)
establish rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Under the US Constitution, you don't have to "clearly establish rights"; rather, the government has to clearly establish that it has been granted certain powers by the people.
Re: (Score:2)
If a plaintiff wants to sue government individuals as individuals for violating the plaintiff's civil rights, the officials will almost certainly assert qualified immunity, at which point the plaintiff must demonstrate the officials' actions violated "clearly established" law.
If a plaintiff cannot or will not do that, he or she can only sue the government entity, not the officials in a personal capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that the court reasoned as if the plaintiff needed to "clearly establish a right"; under US law, you should not have to clearly establish that you have rights, the government should have to clearly establish that it has the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent, albeit distressingly common: US courts have started treating Americans like European peasants.
Re: establish rights? (Score:2)
Then kindly say what you mean. Don't say "you do not have to" do a thing when you mean "you should not have to do" that thing. The rules about qualified immunity were spelled out by the Supreme Court; this appeals court is bound to follow that precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
I did say what I mean: I made a general comment about the distinction between "establishing rights" and the granting of powers. Nowhere in my comment did I say anything about the ruling itself. Apparently, you simply can't read.
Re: establish rights? (Score:2)
You stated what you think the Constitution should mean, but phrased it as an accepted or actual state of affairs. Don't get pissy just because someone pointed out that your comment was either wrong or extremely poorly phrased, depending on how generous a reader is being.
You just agreed with judge you're mad at (Score:2)
> the government should have to clearly establish that it has the powers that it is exercising.
That's what she said. Where "she" is the judge you're pissed off about. Basically this is what has happened:
Judge: 2 + 1 = 3
ooloorie: No, damn it! 2 + 1 is 3 you fucking idiot!
The key word in what you said is "the government". According to the dissent (and the majority also agrees on this point), the government violated the guy's rights. Maybe they didn't train the officers well enough or whatever, but a
Re: (Score:2)
Again, you are not listening: I'm objecting to the notion and language that Americans have specific rights that can be violated. That is a view of justice and the law that applies to European peasants, it is not what we have in the US. In the US, citizens don't have rights that can be violated, government has (limited) powers that can be exercised
That would give government much more power (Score:2)
> citizens don't have rights that can be violated, government has (limited) powers that can be exercised.
That would give the government much, much more power the Constitution currently grants. A few examples:
The government was granted the power to tax.
- But may not violate citizens right to equal treatment, they can't tax hispanic people four times as high as asian people.
The government was granted the power to regulate interstate commerce.
- But may not violate your first amendment rights by prohibitin
Can't sue cops *personally* for requesting ID (Score:5, Informative)
The hearing was about whether he should sue only the city of Fort Worth, or also sue the individual officers personally.
The law about that is the officer os personally liable for monetary damages only if *all* reasonable cops would know that what they did was unconstitutional, because there was clearly established law covering those specific actions in that particular circumstance. In all other cases, the offended party can sue the city or state that the cop works for.
A couple of examples:
A cop is interviewing a suspect. When the suspect just sits there, refusing to talk, the cop hits the suspect with a stick in an attempt to force a false confession. The officer would be personally liable because it's *clearly established* that such behavior is violates the suspect's Constitutional rights. No reasonable cop could think it's okay to hit the guy.
On the other hand:
Two weeks after a police station in Dallas is shot at, a guy is hiding in bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas. Cops approach to see what's going on. The guy is filming the police station (casing it?). Cops ask for ID. The guy asks to speak to a supervisor. The cops call their supervisor to come over, handcuffing the guy for five minutes until the supervisor arrives. Did they violate his Constitutional rights? Maybe. Does every reasonable officer *know* that what they did violates his civil rights? No, an officer might reasonably *think* it's okay to cuff the guy for five minutes. There's not *clearly established law* that in the situation described, they can't cuff him while awating the supervisor he requested. Therefore he can sue the city the cops work for, but can't sue the individual cops personally.
The second scenario above, in which a reasonable cop might mistakenly think cuffing him for a minute is okay, is patterned after the actual events in this case. In reality, he wasn't hiding in the bushes. I added that to make it a better example, an example of a scenario where a reasonable cop might be unsure of what they can and can't legally do.
Re: (Score:3)
How far back is that "in bushes" or "across" zone? A street, a few streets? One block? Given a zoom on a better quality video camera?
Does a person need to be in the bushes? What if they are smart and are not really hiding? Standing next to a tree? Walking near a tree that they could hide behind later? Member of the press looking for the bush where the person got handcuffed? A tourist? A member of the public? Another First Amendment audit near the bushe
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. I'm not concerned with the details or the outcome of the case, but the reasoning. Under US law, you should not have to clearly establish that you have rights, the government should have to clearly establish that it has been granted the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent, albeit distressingly common: US courts have started treating Americans like European peasants.
This ruling wasn't about plaintiff's rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently I didn't make my point clear enough:
This ruling wasn't about whether or not the guy had the right to film the cops. (Yeah the summary is misleading. Without looking back at it now, I'm going to guess it was by Beau "clickbait" HD).
> the government should have to clearly establish that it has been granted the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent
You're contradicting yourself there because the dissent you're objecting to says that the government owes the guy money, because the government infringed his rights.
Furthermore, "the reasoning of the court", which you call "abhorrent" says that not only should he sue the government, but also the individual officers as well.
The really funny part is this - the dissent, which is what you actually don't like, I think, is based on the argument that sometimes court rulings can be hard to completely understand - a point you're proving well by completely misunderstanding the topic of this hearing.
Re: (Score:2)
And I wasn't commenting on the ruling, I was commenting on the language.
No, what I don't like is the notion of "rights" that need to be "established". Even the attorney for the plaintiffs uses the language involving "clearrly established rights".
Re: Can't sue cops *personally* for requesting ID (Score:2)
And you're missing the point several times over. Qualified immunity is not about requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate their rights before they can sue the government over infringements of those rights. It only applies when they want to sue government officials in a personal capacity, rather than the government itself. The rule exists because without something like it, government officials would not vigorously enforce laws due to the risk of civil liability.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying anything about qualified immunity or the merits of the case. I am admonishing people to stop talking about "infringements of rights". Americans aren't European peasants.
Re: Can't sue cops *personally* for requesting ID (Score:2)
This court decision is specifically about qualified immunity for the police officers. If you want to talk about something else, like the way you imagine the Constitution works,please make it clear that you're changing the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Your second case is a red herring.
Turner was not "hiding in the bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas", as you implied. Did you watch the video?
Turner was plainly standing, out in the open, on a public sidewalk. He was clearly unarmed, and posed no threat. All he had was a camera, and all he was doing was filming.
It might be reasonable for the police to come out and try to talk to him. But do you believe that, under these circumstances, it was reasonable to handcuff him, throw him in a
I specifically said the opposite "wasn't hiding" (Score:2)
> Turner was not "hiding in the bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas", as you implied.
Let me quote myself for you, "he wasn't hiding in the bushes." Did you misread "wasn't" and think I said "was"?
Did you miss "here are two hypothetical examples"?
> Do you believe that the cops were in the right, arresting a man standing in plain sight
It's interesting that after that long angry rant, at the end you ask me what I think about it. Perhaps you realized that in no point in the po
Summary: Cop was mad, not stupid (Score:2)
Let me summarize what I just said, to perhaps make it more clear:
The judges had to decide if it was *possible* that the cops might have been stupid.
I don't think that's possible. I'm sure that the cops were mad, not stupid.
One judge thinks it's possible that the cops were stupid / poorly trained.
I'm not mad at the judge - it's not completely ridiculous to think that a cop might be stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
But do you believe that, under these circumstances, it was reasonable to handcuff him,
Yes. It's called "detained pending an investigation". And since it's a common practice in law enforcement, Turner may be able win a suit against the department, but the individual officers were acting in accordance with standard policies.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand: Two weeks after a police station in Dallas is shot at, a guy is hiding in bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas. Cops approach to see what's going on. The guy is filming the police station (casing it?). Cops ask for ID. The guy asks to speak to a supervisor. The cops call their supervisor to come over, handcuffing the guy for five minutes until the supervisor arrives. Did they violate his Constitutional rights? Maybe. Does every reasonable officer *know* that what they did violates his civil rights? No, an officer might reasonably *think* it's okay to cuff the guy for five minutes. There's not *clearly established law* that in the situation described, they can't cuff him while awating the supervisor he requested. Therefore he can sue the city the cops work for, but can't sue the individual cops personally.
The second scenario above, in which a reasonable cop might mistakenly think cuffing him for a minute is okay, is patterned after the actual events in this case. In reality, he wasn't hiding in the bushes. I added that to make it a better example, an example of a scenario where a reasonable cop might be unsure of what they can and can't legally do.
Actually, I don't think that would be legal, and there is clearly established law that the cuffing is at least a detention requiring reasonable suspicion. It's been well established that they can pat the guy down for weapons legally, and that should be sufficient to assuage their concerns - cuffing someone simply because they refuse to give their ID would be unreasonable.
In this particular case, you'll note that the officers actually won the appeal (affirming qualified immunity) on the first amendment clai
Re: (Score:2)
> Actually, I don't think that would be legal
I don't necessarily disagree. Certainly it would still be questionable, which was the point - a scenario where it's not 100% crystal clear.
> the cops handcuff the guy while waiting for the supervisor that he asked for. They're not taking further investigative steps
That's a reasonable argument. It could also be argued that getting the supervisor's assistance *is* a further step. Of course in this case it seems at least one cop was acting out of anger.
As
As a civilian too your employer would be liable (Score:2)
Actually the rule is similar for civilian employees. If, in the course of your job duties, you do something wrong and someone sues, it's generally your employer who is liable. The legal term is "respondeat superior", latin for "let the boss respond".
This is because it's the company who benefits from the work, and therefore should take the risks of work being done imperfectly. The present case applies this same principle to policing - the police department is liable for the actions of their employees.
If, wh
Rights vs. Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
We are fortunate that there are few bad actors, but we are unfortunate that their brothers and sister officers are usually very reluctant to report those that are.
Re:Rights vs. Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
The only fix to that is swift, decisive, and extremely harsh punishment for abuses of the law; as opposed to free all-expenses-paid vacations like they instead currently get.
If using the baton and arresting someone illegally, that shouldn't JUST cost you your job: that's assault with a deadly weapon, and kidnapping to boot. People with power over others MUST be held to a higher standard: The stick MUST be at least twice the size of the carrot, and never a carrot of its own!
Re: (Score:3)
Some may, but the many white conservatives are quick to assume and project, denigrating the subject of the beating by sneering "you need a safe place snowflake?" and shouting "DEPORT THEM!".
Oddly enough, white conservatives are the ones that squeal the loudest if they are unfortunate enough to experience a rights violation. I do not think any rights violation should evoke schadenfreude no matter the subject, but I do sometimes have to remind myself of that. I am bitterly dis
Yeah (Score:2)
Yay for the Batt!* (Score:2)
I've followed Phillip Turner's 1st Amendment audits for a long time and it was very good to see him prevail in court. Very, VERY good.
This was a huge win for everyone in the US that gives a damn about the 1st Amendment.
*(His Youtube channel is "The Battousai", so people call him "Batt" or the Batman.)
You have the absolute right to film the police in public, period. Watch and learn, kids: https://www.youtube.com/user/T... [youtube.com]
Fake News is Ancient News (Score:2)
Re:No you dont (Score:5, Interesting)
Police will try a few mind tricks at the more interesting sites. Courts, mil base, vital infrastructure, jails, prisons will usually create a chat down event.
A demand, request for photo ID and the reason for walking on public and, having a camera on public land..
Anything from a friendly request to "help" with the paperwork, a request to give a name, to a direct almost legal sounding demand for photo id.
Other chat down methods are Who are you working for, Will this be on the net, under what account... Do you have police press ID?
Mil, contractors and private security will often try the same with "chat downs" about been near their site. Still on public land but they have some "power" to ask who a person is well beyond their fence line...
That the jail, base, court "extends" out onto public land past any fence, sign and that the ability to film from public land is not allowed is often attempted.
The other trick is to let the person have their "rights" and follow them back to their car and get the plate and id..
Other more direct methods is the undercover talking point. Not to show faces.
Or a federal official with no ID or uniform might grab a camera to induce local police to be called. To report the crime a name will have to be given.
The crime will be reported but later FOIA will never ID the person who reached out for the camera.
A lot of chat down ways around a lack of clear Stop and identify statutes.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Where is my right to privacy? It seems that you're saying I have none. Yet privacy is an established constitutional guarantee.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No you dont (Score:4, Interesting)
But if the chat down results in photo ID voluntarily been shown or the dslr/camera been handed over?
If the chat down is loud, direct, friendly, helpful the person on public land might just show ID, stop filming or even hand over their camera.
Been surrounded by mil in uniform, private security and/or local police on public land all suggesting it might be a good time to show ID and to turn off the camera?
That police would like to or want to or need to know who a person with a camera is for their paperwork as they got called out..
The ability to suggest that its now very normal, helpful, good to stop filming and hand over photo ID? Or just give up the media/storage to be a helpful as an investigation could be started..
That line between under arrest, conducting an investigation, talking, been free to go, is having a dslr in public on public land reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime?
Another attempt is to suggest press ID, local police press ID gives permission to film in that area or city... that all land in the state is state property and not really public land
That very special permission is always needed to film "on" a mil base. "In" a court building due to informants or people in jail... or due to under cover officers..
Anything to keep the conversation going and the person speaking about their rights...
The hope is the person will then show photo ID just to have the ability to walk away after such creative talking points.
Re: (Score:2)
"A persons (sic) rights cannot be taken."
I doubt any of those in prison would agree.
Not if they are mad about today. VIOLATED (Score:3)
Rights can be violated and rights can be infringed.
Suppose the last year the government put you in prison for saying "Obama sucks". This year, you're still in prison. Are your rights being violated this year?
I would say yes, as long as you're still in prison, your rights are still being violated. Agreed?
I would also say it's impossible to violate a non-existent right someone doesn't have. Agreed?
If your rights are being violated today, you must have rights today, rights that are being violated. If you h
Re: (Score:3)
Millions of people thrown into prison for drug use were acting perfectly civilly at the time of their arrest. So too were various political prisoners, namely minority activists.
Re: (Score:2)
(ianal)
Re: (Score:3)
Where does the constitution specifically call out a right to breathe or to eat? The constitution is not a list of human rights. It's a list of things the government is allowed to do. If it isn't in the constitution it is the government and not the citizen that is prevented from acting.
In this case a police officer is the government. If the constitution does not specifically allow the police to confiscate cameras and harass citizens using them then they are not allowed to do so. But that is just theory. In p
actually, contraception, not abortion (Score:3, Informative)
Griswold v. Connecticut - the government has no business peering into your bedroom
note well - constitutional rights apply to government actions, your right to privacy, or free press, or whatever, is that the government can't interfere. A private party might invade your privacy, but that's not a constitutional thing..
But subsequent to Griswold, the idea of privacy has extended virtually everywhere, including actual laws protecting citizens against disclosure of private information collected by the governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think the only reason somebody would film the police is because it benefits them?
Judge Clement didn't say you can't film police (Score:5, Informative)
Judge Clement's dissenting opinion did not say that citizens aren't allowed to film the police.
This hearing was about whether he should just sue the city, or of he could also sue the individual officers personally, given the particular details of the events, and the particular circumstances at the time. The law on this question depends on those details.
Clement believes that the city is liable in this particular instance, not the individual officers personally.
There's no general principle at being decided in this case. Though it was mentioned that citizens generally have a right to film police in the conduct of their duties, that was settled law - as the the opinion mentioned, there is no circuit court split or anything on that question.
Re: (Score:2)
Just poor writing on the part of Arse Technica.