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

51–60 of 272 posts

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#51

Post by tehwebguy »

zdragnar wrote: post #28
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.

Several people have been charged with hate crimes for spinning their car tires over rainbow painted sidewalks, even though nobody else was present. Hate crime is a fucking stupid term; a crime is a crime is a crime. That said, if targeting one group deserves special treatment, then targeting any group should get the same. Equal application of the law, y'know?

> Several people have been charged with hate crimes for spinning their car tires over rainbow painted sidewalks, even though nobody else was present.

You don’t think general vandalism and targeted vandalism should be handled differently?

Also, citation needed!

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#52

Post by 542354234235 »

mrangle wrote: post #32
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-…

Read assault laws. Most people think that assault is battery. It isn't. While I wouldn't comment on the event in question because I didn't see it, generally speaking people can't assault police anymore than they can civilians. What the police carry is irrelevant, and speaking to it as if it is implies a type of dissonance that will lead to someone being arrested. Remember that this is the age wherein people are getti…

>Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art.

Do you mean vandalizing and/or destroying other people's property or pulling a sign away from someone else and destroying it, or do you mean being charged with assault for destroying their own LGBT sign? Because those are night and day different things. I would love to see a source if it is the latter, since you can legally burn the American flag, but you can't burn someone else's American flag.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#53

Post by mitt_romney_12 »

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…

>25 feet isn't very far. In the other states mentioned I believe it's 10 feet, which is reasonable

The 25 ft buffer means that while people aren't prevented from recording an arrest, they are prevented from making a recording that would actually show anything. Like the article says "They create a visual and auditory buffer likely to produce reasonable doubt in the courtroom. Is the officer’s knee on the suspect’s shoulder, or on his windpipe? Is the suspect fighting, or flailing? From 25 feet, with officers blocking visibility, phone cameras can’t capture crucial details. From 25 feet, they can’t capture choking sounds or someone crying “I can’t breathe.”"

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#54

Post by lordfrito »

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) [1]

It seems that more and more Americans feel intimidated by just about anything nowadays (microagressions, etc.). So much so that Hate Crimes and Safe Spaces are now a thing. People have lost jobs due to Cancel Culture fueled hate-mobs.

I don't buy into class warfare, in my worldview police are just as fragile (no more, no less) as any other human. Holding a gun in your hand doesn't make you any less fragile, just more hazardous/dangerous. I'm sure there are plenty of people that regularly carry guns, people that (based on class/race/etc) would be considered extremely fragile. The gun doesn't change that distinction.

Why wouldn't police officers be afforded the same kinds of protections from microagressions that are given to other people in this country? Doesn't a police officer have a right to a safe working environment, and aggression free interactions with 'customers' (citizens), and laws saying as much? If the answer is patriarchy or 'whiteness' (whatever that means) etc. then this is just more of the same toxic in group / out group stuff used to justify holding power over others.

Is a hard working police officer allowed to be offended by songs such as "Fuck The Police"? Is that "hate speech"? Should the creators of that song be cancelled for being filled with hate directed at a particular "out group"?

More and more I am bothered by the kinds of "distinctions" between people we're making in this country. You know, the kind based on race, class, education, wealth, etc. that just separates people into "this kind" and "that kind". This "this kind" gets special treatment, while "that kind" is afforded no protections, and is persecuted (don't get me started on the people who say "its OK they deserve it").

Laws like this are profoundly anti-American, going against the kinds of values we've collectively upheld for over 200 years.

"Fuck the police" indeed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_colorblindness

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#55

Post by jimbob45 »

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-…

In fairness, Utah is arguably the most conservative state in the US right more by virtue of its hefty Mormon bloc.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#56

Post by enragedcacti »

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.

its kind of a term of art and applies more to the state than the police specifically - although the police are obviously the primary tool of doling out legalized violence and have in many ways usurped the power to determine what qualifies as legal.

> For the same reasons, "monopoly" does not mean that only the government may use physical force, but that the state is that human community that successfully claims for itself to be the only source of legitimacy for all physical coercion or adjudication of coercion. For example, the law might permit individuals to use force in defense of one's self or property, but this right derives from the state's authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#57

Post by harimau777 »

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.

One difference is that regular citizens have to prove that they were acting in self defense while, in practice, police are almost always given the benefit of the doubt.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#58

Post by mitt_romney_12 »

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) […

> 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".

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#59

Post by respondo2134 »

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…

First, I agree that ALL cops spend a large portion of their job dealing with the worst aspects of our society. This inevitably colours their perspective and puts them in a very tough situation, prone for very bad mistakes.

I disagree with your "some bad apples" analogy though. That would be easy to fix relative to the problem we have which is systemic. "Good" cops are in the exact same situation as the bad ones. Policing is required yet fundamentally causing the problems at the same time.

>> 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?

As stated in the article all 50 states already have laws on the books that prevent interference with police while doing their job. If you are in a public facing role like a police officer you most certainly do not have the right to being shielded from observation and interaction - that's a huge part of the job and probably part of the solution too.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#60

Post by wahnfrieden »

softfalcon wrote: post #20
bamfly wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 reali…

Bullies and thieves seek the valor and respectability they think their position warrants
Post reply on HN