Judge: Citizens can sometimes be stopped from recording cops

  • metta

    Posts: 38623

    Feb 27, 2016 6:50 AM GMT

    Judge: Citizens can sometimes be stopped from recording cops


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 27, 2016 2:21 PM GMT

    "Kearney ruled that citizens don't have an unfettered right to record police activity. He said police are free to stop such recordings unless the person shooting the video announces he or she is recording as a challenge or protest to officers' actions."

    Such intimidation is a serious infringement upon of our freedoms that we could film generally everything else in our daily view--maybe not a bathroom scene where privacy is presumed--but not that very public street scene? Never mind being specifically a violation of Disability Rights? How exactly would a mute videographer announce at the time of capturing a spontaneous police event that he's filming "as a challenge or protest to the officer's action." As if that should be the only reason anyway.

    Are police fluent in sign language? How about the judge, is he familiar because I've a hand signal in mind.

    And even at that, wouldn't calling out such announcement distract the officer from the performance of his duty slightly more so than having a camera on him. Or is the judge saying that the camera is more distracting to the officer than is your yelling to him that you are protesting his actions?

    What is this law called, The Statute of Simon Says?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 27, 2016 4:33 PM GMT
    I'm not sure how far that decision will go, since higher courts have already decided otherwise. I believe the issue is the police operating in a public place, as official law enforcement agents, who have no presumption of personal privacy.

    And as I noted in another thread, I never heard of this concept of requiring my actions to be "expressive conduct" in order to be protected by the US Constitution. Previous court rulings have established that forms of expressive conduct can be INCLUDED under the free speech provisions of the First Amendment, but not that they are REQUIRED. If this summary of the judge's ruling is accurate then he's got no more Constitutional knowledge than a bottom-of-the-class first year law student.