Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 272 posts

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#241

Post by autoexec »

valval wrote: post #240
autoexec wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you should try having one friend stand 25 feet away while another steps on your neck to see if the camera can still make out your pleas for air while 3-8 others are screaming at you to stop resisting. There are already laws to deal with people who interfere with the work of police. These anti-filming laws don't make interfering with police illegal. They only make recording crimes committed by police illegal. Th…

> There's no justification for these anti-filming laws other than allowing police to abuse the public. There is, and it’s been stated in simple terms multiple times in these comments, as well as the justification for the law. You saying otherwise doesn’t make it untrue that filming police from too close is dangerous and obstructing. You’re simply talking about a subject you know nothing about either great confidence…

> There is, and it’s been stated in simple terms multiple times in these comments

Yet not in yours. What makes "these comments" a better source on what these laws are for than the laws themselves?

The laws are explicitly about stopping people from filming police. They don't make it illegal to obstruct the police. Laws preventing obstruction of police already exited before these new laws. Police already had, and continue to have, the power to order people to move back or disperse due to concerns over officer or public safety.

These new laws don't change those existing laws. All these new laws do is criminalize filming police.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#242

Post by mitt_romney_12 »

hellojesus wrote: post #236
mitt_romney_12 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

> 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 What? There are no such things as criminal hate speech or am I misunderstanding 1A?

You're right I meant to say hate crimes not hate speech. Although in the Utah case her actions where pretty clearly speech [1]

[1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016431004/a-woman-is-facing-...

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#243

Post by mitt_romney_12 »

valval wrote: post #239
mitt_romney_12 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you really believe that, I recommend going outside and stepping off 25 feet and then trying some smartphone recordings. I recommend you trying that in a high stress situation involving an number of people in close proximity and lots of environmental noise. And then trying to see how that footage would be interpreted by a hostile lawyer in court > I wouldn't be surprised if cops find it very uncomfortable to have…

> I am more concerned about not being assaulted or killed. Don’t be — you’re safe unless you decide to make 10 of the worst decisions of your life in a row.

I don't think that's what causes police killings unless you consider walking out of your friend's house with a cellphone in your hand making "10 of the worst decisions of your life in a row"[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Andre_Hill#Incident

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#244

Post by watwut »

hellojesus wrote: post #233
watwut wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't do nothing and if they try, they will go to prison forever.

In the short term, any resistance is a death sentence. However, the gov agents always have to think about whether the person they're encountering is willing to throw their life away. If enough citizens become willing to be dead, real change happens. Sacrifice is required for such events, but clearly having an armed population helps reduce the power asymmetry.

Gangs are that resistance and they are not winning.

In slums, drug cartels found enough of people willing to throw the life away. And as much as they are able to deal drugs, there is no symmetry between them and state. The Dead bodies just pile up.

Armed population does absolutely nothing except lynching here and there. And even those lynching happened with approval from state.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#245

Post by annoyingnoob »

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…

Apparently, you've never had the police violate your rights, and for no reason at all. One day, you will be in a place and at a time that the police do not like for some reason, you will be perfectly within the law and within your rights, and you will catch a beatdown. Tell me how you feel once that happens to you.

I'm a white person, probably considered upper-middle class. I have no criminal record, I don't even have a driving record. Yet, I've been felony stopped and harassed repeatedly - never arrested or even given a citation. I filed citizens complaints, and cops investigate their coworkers and find nothing wrong. The bruises on my body were plenty proof of something wrong, there is documentation. Qualified Immunity means the cops can do whatever they want and get away with it. It takes undeniable citizen evidence to fight back, exactly the kind of evidence that these new laws would like to limit. Cops are never above the law. If the cops can film me in public then I can film them in public too. Frankly, I'm willing to die over the right to film the police - they'll have to kill me to stop me.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#246

Post by hellojesus »

mitt_romney_12 wrote: post #242
hellojesus wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 What? There are no such things as criminal hate speech or am I misunderstanding 1A?

You're right I meant to say hate crimes not hate speech. Although in the Utah case her actions where pretty clearly speech [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016431004/a-woman-is-facing-...

This case is not going to result in a criminal indictment. It is clearly a 1A violation. Much like how Florida has recently been nabbing people from other states for online posts[1].

In both cases, it seems the justice system is being weaponized to punish those via a lengthy judicial process. Hopefully the defendants will sue for civil rights violations.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/what-does-in-minec...

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#247

Post by hellojesus »

watwut wrote: post #244
hellojesus wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the short term, any resistance is a death sentence. However, the gov agents always have to think about whether the person they're encountering is willing to throw their life away. If enough citizens become willing to be dead, real change happens. Sacrifice is required for such events, but clearly having an armed population helps reduce the power asymmetry.

Gangs are that resistance and they are not winning. In slums, drug cartels found enough of people willing to throw the life away. And as much as they are able to deal drugs, there is no symmetry between them and state. The Dead bodies just pile up. Armed population does absolutely nothing except lynching here and there. And even those lynching happened with approval from state.

The gangs clearly aren't trying to war against the state. If they were, I imagine the scenario would result in the national guard or a result akin to Mexico.

If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#248

Post by s1artibartfast »

542354234235 wrote: post #206
next_xibalba wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this type of overly simplistic claim pretty naive and unhelpful. If you knew any police, you would know it sure doesn't look like a privilege. It is often an unpleasant job. Policing is much more dangerous than the average job, often involves dealing with the mentally ill, intoxicated, people in some form of crisis, people who are just antisocial criminal jerks, etc. It is not very well compensated profession.…

>Policing is much more dangerous than the average job, often involves dealing with the mentally ill, intoxicated, people in some form of crisis, people who are just antisocial criminal jerks, etc. It is not very well compensated profession. You could say the same thing about convenience store workers, yet somehow they do it without infringing on people’s constitutional rights, shooting unarmed people, and murdering 2…

Do we know how many pets convenience store owners kill a day?

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#249

Post by noptd »

autoexec wrote: post #195
harimau777 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the 10 foot rule apply if you are the one being spoken to by the police? E.g. if you are recording a traffic stop.

According to the Arizona law even if a police officer is beating you, you'd be committing a crime by recording them so long as the police can claim that you were also "INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS". As long as they scream "stop resisting" at you, you'll probably be a criminal.

Can you link an instance of this happening or is this entirely speculation on your part?

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#250

Post by SauciestGNU »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #110
costanzaDynasty wrote: post #80

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…

I believe the basis of hate crime laws is that the act of committing the crime is low-grade terrorism. When you attack someone because of their membership in a particular (protected) group, you're also sending a message to everyone else in the group that they could be next.

Yes, but "cop" is a job that can be quit, not an innate characteristic, and it's a political function of the government. Suppressing speech against police in any way is an infringement of the most basic expressive rights we supposedly have.
Post reply on HN