> In a free speech ruling that contradicts six other federal circuit courts, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a district court ruling that says Am

> In a free speech ruling that contradicts six other federal circuit courts, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a district court ruling that says Americans do not have a first amendment right to videotape the police, or any public official, in public. Worth noting that this circuit is the outlier, if the assertion is indeed accurate. But where is the "district court ruling that says Americans do not have a first amendment right to videotape the police, or any public official, in public"? I scanned over the 8th Circuit's opinion, which mostly talks about why the recusal denial was okay in their opinion: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/07/163555P.pdf http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/07/163555P.pdf As well as dockets relevant to the case: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/missouri/mowdce/2:2015cv04096/121651 https://dockets.justia.com/docket/missouri/mowdce/2:2015cv04... But I haven't seen anything relevant to the claim in the lede. EDIT: Looks like this has some of the language mentioned, starting on page 32. In particular, the last paragraph of page 34: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missouri/mowdce/2:2015cv04096/121651/117 https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missou... > Further, he has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceedings he wishes to. See Rice v. Kempker... http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1380406.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1380406.html That's Rice v. Kempker. Part that the Akins ruling quotes: > Because we hold that neither the public nor the media has a First Amendment right to videotape, photograph, or make audio recordings of government proceedings that are by law open to the public... So, I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but it seems like the specific claim that the lede latched onto is much more narrow in scope. If a proceeding is public, it doesn't guarantee that anyone is allowed to come in and videotape it. I can't go to the Supreme Court and argue that I have a First Amendment right to take video in there. Am I missing something? If I'm interpreting this correctly, this news article is outrageously inaccurate. Here's another take on the story: much more nuanced and in line with what I've been reading in the dockets. http://www.abc17news.com/news/top-stories/attorney-asks-federal-court-for-rehearing-in-columbia-police-filming-suit/602091246 http://www.abc17news.com/news/top-stories/attorney-asks-fede...