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

Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

documentcloud.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 291 posts

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#241

Post by evandale »

nunuvit wrote: post #222
evandale wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those exceptions won't stop police from thinking you can't record them and using that as a reason to bust your phone followed by busting your lip. Him and his 5 buddies will go on to say that you provoked them and you'll never see justice. In general, North American police are ignorant bullies who couldn't hack it through high school or college. Their maturity level is stuck in the past as well, usually never maturin…

Ok, so let's remove the ban and the exceptions and make it legal to record anyone. Then you record a cop who doesn't want to be recorded. The cop beats you up, breaks your phone, and busts your lip. He and his five buddies say you provoked him, and you never see justice. Problem solved?

It's partially solved.

You may have a chance to see justice because it won't matter if the cop and his 5 buddies say you provoked them with a camera. It's unambiguous that you can record them and there's no possibility of reasonable doubt if you're allowed to record them 100% of the time. There's no loophole they can use to say you can't record them due to privacy or safety or whatever other reasons they want to make up and they'll be in the wrong the second they take action against you.

Do you ever wonder why cops don't want bodycams on them recording 24/7? Their job is supposedly so difficult and dangerous (their words,) that you'd think they would want to show the entire world how difficult and dangerous their jobs are. Maybe people would agree with them about increasing their funding instead of calling to defund them if they had video proof of the difficulty and danger in their jobs instead of taking their word for it?

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#242

Post by mcpackieh »

wnevets wrote: post #234
mcpackieh wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was investigative journalism, if you can call it journalism. CNN investigated the origin of the gif, and used biographical details revealed on reddit to determine the gif creators real name / identity. They didn't ruin his life, but threatened to go public with information which probably would have. Anyway, here's the article in question: https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-tr...

> if you can call it journalism. I don't, hence my comment.

Well that's waffle_ss's point I think.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#243

Post by mcpackieh »

nunuvit wrote: post #214
Laaas wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that neutrality isn't a given and shouldn't be assumed for any media organisation.

I think we might be talking about different things. Slander is illegal. Political speech is constitutionally protected. How exactly does this relate to "neutrality"?

If you trace the conversation thread back up the page, you'll see a discussion about neutrality.

What I can't figure out is why you started talking about protected speech instead, which is unrelated to neutrality.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#244

Post by mcpackieh »

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #176
hug wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been sitting here for a while trying to come up with how to eloquently put this in English and I cannot. Maybe English lacks the appropriate terminology to express the difference between privacy and publicity within the expanded scope of current technology. It’s my only language, and I like to think I’m pretty good at it, but I’m absolutely stumped as to how you’d exactly word exactly what you’re not understandi…

The challenge you have is not language related, but rather logic related. The issue our Swiss friend raises is valid, no matter the language. Do Americans not have an expectation of privacy even when talking in public, based on the expectations of the individuals engaged in speech? For example, when you are at a restaurant with friends, is there not an expectation of privacy within the context of your conversation wi…

Please read at least the 13th amendment before using the 12th as a cutoff! It's hard to believe you know what any of the amendments say if you're claiming those after the 12th are illogical.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#245

Post by stainablesteel »

rootusrootus wrote: post #226
stainablesteel wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do you have a source on any of this cutting?

You don't have to look any farther than the wikipedia page about them to get a list of their antics.

wikipedia is not a valid source when it comes to people-drama, its has political bias.

why the downvote? i'm just curious

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#246

Post by nunuvit »

mcpackieh wrote: post #243
nunuvit wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we might be talking about different things. Slander is illegal. Political speech is constitutionally protected. How exactly does this relate to "neutrality"?

If you trace the conversation thread back up the page, you'll see a discussion about neutrality. What I can't figure out is why you started talking about protected speech instead, which is unrelated to neutrality.

Yeah that's the error, as I interpret it.

One comment mentioned slander, which is illegal. Project Veritas in the past has committed slander, and lost the resulting defamation suit.

The response mentioned neutrality with regards to mocking Trump with an out of context video, which is protected political speech. It seems they're equating two instances of media reporting out of context, and saying that the response to those media outlets is not neutral. But they're not equivalent because one instance is illegal, and the other is protected. So I don't see where we'd need to apply neutrality in the first place.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. What's your take?

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#247

Post by wnevets »

mcpackieh wrote: post #242
wnevets wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you can call it journalism. I don't, hence my comment.

Well that's waffle_ss's point I think.

That things that aren't investigative journalism aren't investigative journalism? Very insightful.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#248

Post by pvarangot »

morkalork wrote: post #202
pvarangot wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California you can record without consent if you have reasons to suspect a crime is going to be committed. It's not the most straightforward thing to get away with and you should work with a lawyer before you do it to be sure it will be accepted as evidence, but you can totally do it.

Laws that make something legal or not conditional on a hypothetical that hasn't happened yet are kind of lowsy. It's like the stand your ground one's where you can just say you believed your life was in danger.

Are you implying you should be able to shoot at someone just because they are at your house or something?

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#249

Post by mcpackieh »

nunuvit wrote: post #246
mcpackieh wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you trace the conversation thread back up the page, you'll see a discussion about neutrality. What I can't figure out is why you started talking about protected speech instead, which is unrelated to neutrality.

Yeah that's the error, as I interpret it. One comment mentioned slander, which is illegal. Project Veritas in the past has committed slander, and lost the resulting defamation suit. The response mentioned neutrality with regards to mocking Trump with an out of context video, which is protected political speech. It seems they're equating two instances of media reporting out of context, and saying that the response to…

My take is that SeanLuke quoted a contentious description of PV's activities. wnevets said the description was an outright lie. ifyoubuildit asked for details. rootusrootus responded that the description implied neutrality, and said they aren't neutral because they target and slander one side particularly. sourcegrift gave an example of other media not being neutral. Then you said that media aren't obliged to be neutral.

Slander was only relevant insofar as the slander evidenced a lack of neutrality. But the lack of neutrality was never truly relevant in the first place; rootusrootus erred when he said the description quoted by SeanLuke implied PV is neutral. BurningFrog and streamer25 were correct in pointing this out. Describing PV as journalism doesn't imply neutrality, nor does anything else in that contentious description.

You also erred when you assumed sourcegrift considers mockery to be slander. From the context of the conversation, I think it's clear that sourcegrift considered the mockery to be evidence that the rest of the media lacks neutrality; in other words sourcegrift was correctly disputing the supposed contradiction between partisanship and journalism. Journalists aren't neutral; journalists mocking people with plain partisan bias demonstrates this.

Re: Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules

#250

Post by nunuvit »

mcpackieh wrote: post #249
nunuvit wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that's the error, as I interpret it. One comment mentioned slander, which is illegal. Project Veritas in the past has committed slander, and lost the resulting defamation suit. The response mentioned neutrality with regards to mocking Trump with an out of context video, which is protected political speech. It seems they're equating two instances of media reporting out of context, and saying that the response to…

My take is that SeanLuke quoted a contentious description of PV's activities. wnevets said the description was an outright lie. ifyoubuildit asked for details. rootusrootus responded that the description implied neutrality, and said they aren't neutral because they target and slander one side particularly. sourcegrift gave an example of other media not being neutral. Then you said that media aren't obliged to be neut…

I read it differently before, but I think you read it correctly.
Post reply on HN