New laws trying to criminalize filming cops • Hacker News Board

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#71

Post by mjamesaustin » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:29 PM UTC

lordfrito wrote: post #54

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-…

> But they are so fragile that a smirk can intimidate them? First let me say I'm not on the side of these kinds of laws. We can't be passing laws giving special privileges to (or removing privileges from) a particular group of people. "Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law." Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) […

A police officer is on duty, doing their job, and should have an expectation of professional behavior the same way ANY OTHER person doing their job does.

Look at how doctors handle unreasonable patients, or how people working in service handle angry customers. Even when people are provocative or rude, the expectation is to use your skills and intelligence to navigate the situation with grace.

In the case of (American) police, not only do they fail to de-escalate tense situations, they routinely escalate those situations into far more dangerous and violent ones, and are allowed to shoot and kill anyone they deem scary.

Yes it would be nice if Americans at large could be taught to act with grace and humility to those serving them, but no amount of microaggressions justifies murdering someone.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#72

Post by harimau777 » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:29 PM UTC

at_a_remove wrote: post #29

matthewdgreen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those of us who said, over and over again, how dumb it was to make up "hate crimes" as a thing are smirking. We did tell you what would happen. Nobody wanted to hear it. Now it's here and everyone is all "shocked Pikachu" from the middle of that slippery slope.

As I understand it, legislation defining hate crimes addresses a very real issue: By creating a threatening environment hate crimes can cause dramatically more damage than what the base crime itself would suggest. For example, the minor punishments associated with trespassing and vandalism don't seem proportionate to the harm caused by the Klan burning a cross in someone's front yard.

Without hate crime legislation, it would be easy for bigots to harass people via what the law would see as minor crimes.

So I'm not necessarily opposed to getting rid of hate crime legislation. However, we would need some other way to protect people.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#73

Post by Supermancho » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:29 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…

> they should be pee-pants scared all the time

Not to step out and defend cops too much but this narrative is unfair...I believe the right to bear arms includes guns and we pay for that as a society. The ones who pay the most are LE. They primarily have to deal with the worst elements of society and the most volatile of individuals. I don't envy the job. I would be scared all the time too.

Chances of me being shot at work are near zero. Chances that a street cop is shot are relatively high. However, they don't take too kindly to allowing threats to themselves or other officers to go unchallenged and are primarily interested with maintaining a sense of being in control of any situation they step into, as a matter of human psychology. People tend not to fuck with the people in charge, even if they don't see weapons. This is how the safety element is framed and it's not intrinsically foolish.

This naturally conflicts with various Constitutional rights, even in theory, so we get these crazy cases where it's a matter of reputation. You mess with the cops, it can come back at you. Americans expect, that almost everywhere, this holds true. This sounds like a lot of power structures in modern society, does it not? as bamfly pointed out.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#74

Post by karaterobot » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:30 PM UTC

tppiotrowski wrote: post #45

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-…

> The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Is this true? I thought killing for self defense is legal.

No, it's not true at all. It's just somebody who heard the phrase applied to the state and then forgot the context and decided it sounded smart to transpose that to the police. Even as applied to the state, it's an oversimplification meant to make a point rather than describe reality.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#75

Post by mitt_romney_12 » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:30 PM UTC

mrangle wrote: post #39

annoyingnoob wrote: post #27

Police officers are citizens just like everyone else. No one has any expectation of privacy while operating in public. The police are just asking for more people to dislike them. How do you treat everyone like shit, try to take away our rights, and then expect everyone to respect you? Respect is a two-way street.

Everyone doesn't get treated like shit. Most people respect and want cops. People whining about cops being mean to them, and their general dispositions, tends to think that their police interaction is a super special customer service experience and that the system is faulty when it falls short of their expectations. The reality is that cops deal with the worst of society multiple times per day, even if you don't repr…

> Most people respect and want cops

89% of Americans think that changes need to made to make policing better and 50% of Americans think that major changes need to be made [1].

> People whining about cops being mean to them, and their general dispositions, tends to think that their police interaction is a super special customer service experience and that the system is faulty when it falls short of their expectations.

If those expectations are the cops not shooting or assaulting innocent people I think those are pretty reasonable expectation and if the system is falling short of them it is absolutely faulty.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/393119/americans-remain-steadfa...

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#76

Post by Qwertious » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:30 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…

>because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act.

Not easily - writing is clearly an expressive act, as is painting. This is true even if you don't publish your writing/painting.

Photography is just as much an art as painting, with camera angle, framing, filters etc all being relevant to the final piece.

Recording someone is filming, which is basically just extended photography.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#77

Post by manuelabeledo » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:31 PM UTC

lordfrito wrote: post #54

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-…

> But they are so fragile that a smirk can intimidate them? First let me say I'm not on the side of these kinds of laws. We can't be passing laws giving special privileges to (or removing privileges from) a particular group of people. "Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law." Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) […

> So much so that Hate Crimes and Safe Spaces are now a thing. People have lost jobs due to Cancel Culture fueled hate-mobs.

It is not "cancel culture", just good old fashioned "consequences".

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#78

Post by lordfrito » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:31 PM UTC

mitt_romney_12 wrote: post #58

lordfrito wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But they are so fragile that a smirk can intimidate them? First let me say I'm not on the side of these kinds of laws. We can't be passing laws giving special privileges to (or removing privileges from) a particular group of people. "Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law." Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) […

> Why wouldn't police officers be subject to the same kinds of protections from microagressions afforded to others? These are special protections afforded only to police officers. Normal people are protected from hate speech about their race or gender but cops are protected from "hate speech" about their race, gender, or profession . It's not hate speech to say "Fuck Lawyers" but it is to say "Fuck the Police".

I'm not sure I'm following you.

I agree, I'm against these kinds of laws (see previous post).

I agree with you, there are special protections given police offers, these are related to the power they are authorized by the state to wield that regular citizens cannot. I can sue you if you break down my door. But a kidnapper can't sue the SWAT team that broke down their door in the course of saving the kidnapped person inside.

Meanwhile, related to civil-rights issues, and workplace related issues, "Police Officers" are still just "normal people" and should have the same basic rights as normal people. Are you suggesting they shouldn't?

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#79

Post by mitt_romney_12 » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:31 PM UTC

kodah wrote: post #43

chmod600 wrote: post #31

A law about staying back when a police officer asks doesn’t seem like the most terrible rights violation. It’s like virtual yellow police tape. One way to look at this is that it clarifies how far you need to stand back. 25 feet is slightly far, maybe it should be 15 feet instead?

10-25 feet seems reasonable with 25 being the upper bound of reasonability. The average person can move 9-12ft/s in a single direction; starting speed would be slower so generous is 5-6ft/s. 2 seconds worth of distance sounds reasonable to keep everyone safe. As others have pointed out the issue likely isn't the distance. It's that police can enforce their own measures here without accountability.

The issue is also the distance, because it makes it harder to get accurate footage of what's going on

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#80

Post by costanzaDynasty » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:32 PM UTC

I've always thought hate crime laws are so misguided. It's just another law to use against people you don't like. Piling on charges for no other reason other than making you feel good.

Do you like the perp?

No: Hate crime

Yes: The brain isn't fully formed yet

I worked on the low end of a giant corporation and they would always add new rules, seemingly targeting people they we trying to fire. Stupid rules like you can't wear white shoes or you have to shave everyday. Each rule targeting a certain employee they didn't like.