After reading the ruling, it is obviously correct. The first amendment guarantees five rights, religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition of government. Recording police is obviously not a religious undertaking, nor is it petitioning the government. It is not speech to film someone. The individuals were not prevented from assembling. I could maybe see a freedom of the press violation but the photos and videos were not destroyed and they could broadcast them after being released.
The judges are correct this is a fourth amendment case and not a first amendment case.
The person was detained for filming - preventing assembly. He was detained in response to filming, retaliating against 1st amendment conduct, gathering information which is a necessary component before expression. In addition, filming police as we have seen in recent history has led to widespread citizen journalism, where the press is construed very broadly. I think you’re totally wrong on this.
According to the judge - if the person in question told the cops to go fuck themselves he would have been expressing or criticizing police activity and therefore the conduct would have been protected.
The First Circuit doesn’t think it’s so obvious.
I wish the need were nonexistent, but the ACLU and NORML are on my list of organizations I support financially.
“However, the court also ruled that the right to film public officials was subject to reasonable limitations with respect to the time, place and manner in which the recording was conducted.”
In both the Miller and Geraci cases, there’s was an alleged interference of the police activity. The First Amendment is not to be so broadly interpreted as to allow “… [having] folks push their arm past my face in an attempt to film the person I was arresting”.
In the Miller case, the photograph was returned to the owner, no infringement of his rights. In the Geraci case, she is allow to proceed with her Fourth Amendment complaint of illegal search and seizure.
Sounds like a robust decision to me.
No disagreement. Virtually every judge in this country is a political hack.
(Removed)
I agree that the First Amendment does not explicitly contain the right to film police.
But neither does it contain the right to buy and possess ink. Still, if the state sought to suppress newspaper printing by requiring a license to buy and possess ink, and limited those licenses to publishers amenable to praising the government, it would implicate First Amendment guarantees. There’s a concept called “chilling effect,” where actions that enjoy First Amendment protection are stifled because of a vague or overly broad prohibition. These types of regulatory actions are also typically violative of the First Amendment, even when they don’t directly strike at one of the named First Amendment protections.
In addition, I think that filming the police in public is itself expressive conduct, regardless of how loudly or softly the filmographer announces his intentions.
Here, I am not sure you have a winning argument. How much of this decision rested on state law’s clearly establishing a right? It could well be that the fact that two different states are involved, with different laws, changes things.
I am on a phone and can’t easily read the cases.
How is filming assembly? Assembly means congregating in groups, filming means taking video. There are not the same thing at all.
Freedom of the press means freedom to disperse information. Filming is gathering information.
Telling a cops to f themselves is obviously speech, so it is covered under the first amendment.
The first amendment covers five specific rights, filming is not one of them.
Judges think alot of stupid things. It is obviously a breach of the fourth amendment since the people who were arrested did not violate any law and the wiretapping charge was clearly a pretext.
How is filming an activity that the police can stop? It is not in itself interfering with the police if done from a reasonable distance. The cop on the beat does not have the authority to assume any power that is not explicitly denied him by the constitution. If someone thinks it’s reasonable for the police to prevent filming their activities let them enact a law saying so that can be subject to actual review in the courts and by the electorate.
Kearney’s decision will get reversed, fortunately.
In some ways, the ruling is a good thing. They were prepared to go to trial in March, with the potential for some confounding issues to have prevented a clean appeal. But this way, the Third Circuit will rule on the central issue–and sooner.
Hopefully this will get reversed. Knowing they are being filmed probably makes police a little more cognizant of an eventual review of their actions. That review is something society, unfortunately, needs.
Why?
In the Miller case, the right to film, photograph or video is clearly established … the police promptly gave the photo back to Miller … sight unseen. This decision only states that this right to film or photograph lies elsewhere, not under the narrow right of Free Speech. Get it, Miller is free to splash that photograph everyplace.
In the Geraci case, the decision that sends this case to trial again clearly establishes her right to film … otherwise there is no illegal seizure. But again, it’s not a Free Speech right, but some other right.
There’s nothing here to stop us from filming or photographing except that such filming and photography should interfere with the police activity… which makes perfect sense.
He was detained while standing on the sidewalk - assembling.
Gathering information is a necessary prerequisite before expressing or dispersing information. This was in the opinion.
An encouraging development in the level of discourse between police and non-police. If you say nothing, you can be detained, but if you tell them to go fuck themselves then you are covered under the first amendment.
No. The first amendment covers more than these. You state the five rights are protected involve religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition of government. The first amendment also protects association:
Your statement about five rights is false.
Filming may not be explicitly protected, but information gathering in the context of news reporting is. Quoting Volokh:
Except you know, being detained and having your filming equipment taken, even if briefly.
I would think the ruling is at odds on some level with FOIA. The spirit of that law is one of public transparency.
Recording police is step one of petitioning the government. It’s creating evidence that there is an actual grievance that needs to be addressed.
This is like the Geraci case where the Fourth Amendment complaint is going to trial, her case bears enough merit. THAT decision doesn’t need to be qualified, she may be found to be entitled to her film without regard to what she plans to do with it. If she wins, she can use the film most anyway she wants to; decorate her X-mas tree, use stills in her newspaper, trade it for a gun, AND/OR use it as Free Speech.
If I might use Bricker’s example, we have the right to purchase ink. This right is not qualified to require us to use it to print a newspaper.
We have the right to film police. This right is not qualified to require us to use the images in Free Speech.
The judge used a very narrow lens when he addressed the Free Speech issue, essentially stating that neither were actually “speaking” at the time, so there was no speech to be abridged.
Bottom line is when a police officer tells you to move along, you move along. If you think your rights were violated, you move along to the nearest ACLU office. If you tell the officer to fuck off and refuse to move along, then the ACLU will have to visit you in jail.