New laws trying to criminalize filming cops • Hacker News Board

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#11

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 2:29 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #5

giraffe_lady wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? I've seen first hand police use the justification of stopping filming them to use violence on and arrest people filming them. For however long it takes to get this in front of the supreme court, assuming they choose to hear it, assuming they choose to endorse our rights, it will be u…

>Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? Having read the reasoning of overturning Roe (I assume that's what you are alluding to), no, I'm not concerned. First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. >They don't let you out of prison when the law used to ju…

> First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws.

I wonder what precedent links filming something to the 1st amendment. If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations. These have not been ruled unconstitutional even though it's a similar activity to filming the police.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#12

Post by Clubber » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 2:33 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #11

Clubber wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? Having read the reasoning of overturning Roe (I assume that's what you are alluding to), no, I'm not concerned. First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. >They don't let you out of prison when the law used to ju…

> First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. I wonder what precedent links filming something to the 1st amendment. If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations…

>If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act.

I linked this on an earlier reply, but I believe it answers your question.

https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amend...

>Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations. These have not been ruled unconstitutional even though it's a similar activity to filming the police.

Police have tried using this as an exception but I believe it was shot down because it's in public. The fact that some of them disliked being filmed so much just bolsters the case that they need to be filed, IMO.

>Most of us would be furious about being filmed on the job. We just don’t render deadly force.

If you're in public, you're always being filmed. Look up at most light poles, there's cameras everywhere.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#13

Post by b112 » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 2:33 PM UTC

whoknew1122 wrote: post #4

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” (the crime for which a woman in Utah was prosecuted)." Wow... this is just... The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Police carry at minimum one deadly weapon (a handgun), but usually have multiple so-called less-…

And yet it wasn't a smirk, now was it? It was a smirk and other things.

Right or wrong, call it what it is. Don't drop info off the event, and focus on one part of it.

And if someone has a right not to be harassed, when doing their job in an office, why doesn't a cop, when doing their job on the street?

Note, I said "doing their job", not "doing it wrong".

For damned sure there are bad cops. But by god, there are a load of good ones, and some of them spend all day, dealing with people at their absolute worst, taking crap you or I wouldn't be able to handle for 5 minutes.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#14

Post by zeroonetwothree » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 2:34 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #11

Clubber wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? Having read the reasoning of overturning Roe (I assume that's what you are alluding to), no, I'm not concerned. First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. >They don't let you out of prison when the law used to ju…

> First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. I wonder what precedent links filming something to the 1st amendment. If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations…

Freedom of the press of course. Filming is critical to journalism.

Recording in private is completely different.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#15

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 2:36 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #10

s1artibartfast wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly there's some distance where proximity becomes interfering with an arrest. However, I don't see why that should ever change based on if you are holding a camera or not. I wonder what pre-existing law or case law says about police telling people too back away.

>I don't see why that should ever change based on if you are holding a camera or not. It should not, but I believe that holding a camera is a strong signal that a person is operating as a journalist. It could be argued that a person watching an incident can easily be operating in the same capacity. I was wrong, the SCOTUS hasn't directly addressed filming of police, but that seems like it never got a chance to make i…

[deleted]

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#16

Post by rawgabbit » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 2:39 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #11

Clubber wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? Having read the reasoning of overturning Roe (I assume that's what you are alluding to), no, I'm not concerned. First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. >They don't let you out of prison when the law used to ju…

> First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. I wonder what precedent links filming something to the 1st amendment. If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe

the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of police carrying out their duties in a public place

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#17

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 2:39 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #13

whoknew1122 wrote: post #4

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” (the crime for which a woman in Utah was prosecuted)." Wow... this is just... The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Police carry at minimum one deadly weapon (a handgun), but usually have multiple so-called less-…

And yet it wasn't a smirk, now was it? It was a smirk and other things. Right or wrong, call it what it is. Don't drop info off the event, and focus on one part of it. And if someone has a right not to be harassed, when doing their job in an office, why doesn't a cop, when doing their job on the street? Note, I said "doing their job", not "doing it wrong". For damned sure there are bad cops. But by god, there are a l…

> if someone has a right not to be harassed, when doing their job in an office, why doesn't a cop, when doing their job on the street

Please show precedent for anyone being prosecuted for rendering an “intimidating smirk” in any other context. Or filming someone working in public.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#18

Post by matthewdgreen » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 2:39 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #13

whoknew1122 wrote: post #4

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” (the crime for which a woman in Utah was prosecuted)." Wow... this is just... The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Police carry at minimum one deadly weapon (a handgun), but usually have multiple so-called less-…

And yet it wasn't a smirk, now was it? It was a smirk and other things. Right or wrong, call it what it is. Don't drop info off the event, and focus on one part of it. And if someone has a right not to be harassed, when doing their job in an office, why doesn't a cop, when doing their job on the street? Note, I said "doing their job", not "doing it wrong". For damned sure there are bad cops. But by god, there are a l…

Thanks to your comment I read through to the original article and it’s even more despicable than I’d thought from the description. She’s being accused of a “hate crime” for “intimidating the police” based on defacing a sign. It’s the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard of, and I have no idea why any rational human being would defend it.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#19

Post by bigbillheck » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 2:41 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #2

Filming police performing their duties is a constitutionally protected activity affirmed by many circuit courts and strongly alluded to by the SCOTUS. >On July 1, an Indiana law went into effect making it a crime to come within 25 feet of an on-duty police officer if ordered to stay back. Legislators in Florida, Louisiana, and New York have produced similar laws. 25 feet isn't very far. In the other states mentioned…

> Filming police performing their duties is a constitutionally protected activity affirmed by the SCOTUS

For now.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#20

Post by softfalcon » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 2:41 PM UTC

bamfly wrote: post #8

whoknew1122 wrote: post #4

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” (the crime for which a woman in Utah was prosecuted)." Wow... this is just... The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Police carry at minimum one deadly weapon (a handgun), but usually have multiple so-called less-…

> I'm not sure how someone wearing body armor and carrying multiple weapons that can incapacitate or kill someone can be intimidated by a smile. They're wannabe military tough-guys with laughably worse training and culture, much of which tells them they should be pee-pants scared all the time (seriously—folks very-successfully sell some wacko training courses to cops; or, just look at the disconnected-from-reality-an…

Yeah, this is becoming more and more the case. I have friends who are associated with or in law enforcement and if you ever end up at a bar with them they will endlessly talk about the "threats to their safety" on the job.

I often hear stories where they're checking out a house that has supposed drug use (or similar) and they play it up like they're a marine in a war zone, going to have a man-down shoot out. In reality, they knock on the door, a very high college student answers, they provide the warrant, search through a house of strung out people, and they do their thing.

That being said, our area has a lot of rural patrols and we have had a few incidents where people fire back at the cops on their acreage and it turns into an incident. However, even when dealing with "crazy Billy with a shotgun", they're 2 people, who then call in backup, also have a shotgun, and are otherwise armed. The power dynamic still favours the cops even in that extreme situation.

I feel like there are a lot of rare incidents that get repeated over and over within the police force that keep the cops on edge and further the belief of a need for more and more budget increases for more and more military-style equipment.

For instance, our local city police force just bragged on twitter that they bought a modified troop carrier and a ramming tank for SWAT-like break and enter operations. I'm not sure I want my police owning a literal tank when they already have me outgunned with assault rifles, shot guns, sidearms, and sheer numbers.

By the way, this is in Canada. I'm not even talking about the more extreme stuff going on South of the border.