[Story here:
](http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/news&id=370047651)The ACLU says they will appeal.
Does this mean that I can somehow assert my right not be recorded while in public? How would someone who is not a police officer assert that right? :dubious:
I think the ramifications of this decision, if allowed to stand, would fundamentally alter quite a few things in our society.
34 years on the job and I agree with you. This is a bad ruling.
Keeping in mind that police still need to have the authority to stop people who are obstructing them. (I’ve had folks push their arm past my face in an attempt to film the person I was arresting).
I found the entire decision at Philly Law Blog.
Are there other grounds people have argued against such arrests besides the First?
“…unless a videographer announces the recording as an act of protest or a challenge to officers, police are free to stop it.”
Does that mean that so long as I do say that it’s an act of protest, I am free to keep filming?
What if I am protesting silently?
Does any other act of protest require the protester to announce the fact?
This decision seems odd, to say the least.
How can I express my opinion of police action if is an offence to make a record of police action?
Does this also mean that I can’t sketch a police officer? Take notes of what she says? How far does this ruling go in preventing people from making any record of the police?
Does this mean that the state can prevent the filming of any public event, simply by placing police there? If not, then does that mean that I can simply claim that I was filming Rodney King writhing on the ground, and the police just happened to be in the shot? If not, then that implies that the state can stop anybody at all from filming the President simply by declaring him a police officer.
This is all very weird and hard to reconcile any with any meaningful definition of freedom o the press or free speech.
I’d agree with this, but I would argue against the prohibition on recording the police on grounds other than the First Amendment.
The principle on which I base my belief that it is generally OK to record the police in public and during the performance of their duties is that of limited government. That is, a citizen can do anything at all that he wants to, and it is up to the government to prove that it is against some specific law or some clause in the Constitution.
Police have no right to privacy in the public space, anymore than any other citizens, and less than most - they are acting on behalf of the government, and the government ought to be accountable to its citizens.
If you can have traffic cameras to record license plates, or CCTV to record people in public spaces, then citizens can record the police in public as well.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not just the government that has surveillance cameras. According to this decision the cops can tell businesses to turn off their security cameras that might be recording their activity.
BTW: This judge is an Obama appointee. There’s more than one way to read that.
Which is wrong, as I think we agree. If a business can record its customers, it should be able to record the police. I can’t think of a reason off the top of my head that a surveillance camera could be considered disruptive of police activity.
Meh. I can’t think of a reason to care either way.
Bureaucracies in general tend to increase their scope over time. Governments are bureaucracies. That’s why we have the concept of limited government - the default is to say to the government “It is not of your business”. I don’t have to justify myself. The government does.
Regards,
Shodan
This seems a rather strange ruling. The public cannot film the police in a public setting unless the person filming utters a magic incantation of protest? But the police are filming the police. Isn’t there a massive push on to have dash cams on police vehicles, and body cams on the officers themselves?
I see a lucrative business opportunity selling “This Is An Act Of Protest” T-shirts.
At least until this ruling (which seems absurd to me) is overturned.
Long live the ACLU. Thanks for this, I believe I’ll send them more money.
I don’t know anything at all about this specific guy. But in general, my understanding is that a lot of judges get appointed to lower-profile positions who are not in ideological agreement with the president who appoints them. Generally due to political connections, e.g. as a favor to the home-state senator who sponsors them. It’s only at higher levels that you consistently get all this ideological vetting.
That’s fucking ridiculous. And another reason why we need police to wear cameras at all times. Sometimes people go overboard and/or are stupid.
We can just have a speaker on the cop cars calling out “I’m protesting!” every few seconds.
Agreed, but we need both police cameras and private citizens recording the police as well. Police dash cams and body cams are under the control of the police; those of private citizens are not.
But as you say, it is going to be true that dumb ass citizens are going to be recorded interfering and/or acting stupid at least as much as police, although it may not be as heavily featured on the Internet.
Regards,
Shodan
Beyond that, the horse is out of the barn, now that virtually every cell phone has reasonably high quality video capability and enough storage to capture several minutes of footage.
Plus, it seems like the argument “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” is every bit as equally applicable to the police and the government as it is to the rest of the population, and that’s exactly what this judicial opinion is trying to refute. I’m usually a pretty cop-friendly, law and order sort, but I don’t see how in the world they have the right to request that you stop filming them. That seems like a tacit admission of impending wrongdoing to me.
[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
This seems a rather strange ruling. The public cannot film the police in a public setting unless the person filming utters a magic incantation of protest?
[/QUOTE]
Maybe an “I’ve Said The Relevant Magic Words” decal on the cellphone?
But don’t you see guys, this is a good thing. If citizens can’t film cops murdering black people then those stories won’t get out to the public. Since they don’t get out to the public there won’t be any riots. Since there won’t be any riots towns will not get destroyed. Since towns won’t get destroyed they won’t have to raise taxes to rebuild. Since they won’t have to raise taxes everyone saves money. 3. Profit.
The opinion expressly notes disagreement in other circuits:
After this the opinion talks about the “intent to share” as a component to the information gathering aspect that is necessary in the process of expression, and that without the intent to share then the information gathering is less persuasive.
I expect the ruling to be reversed upon final adjudication. Because it’s stupid.
I have for several years made a point of stopping and watching any police encounter with civilians here in Portland. Not being a dick, not being pushy, not getting anywhere close to being in the way. But being a set of eyes on everyone’s behavior. My phone camera is kind of crap, and I don’t have a smart phone…but maybe I’ll get one and start recording on principle, just in case the ACLU needs a test case. I’d quite honestly be willing to go to jail to challenge this bullshit.
Yeah, I can’t see how it can possibly stand with all the holes it seems to have. But I’m interested in having Bricker and Parker weigh in.