4 ms·

This is often the case, especially with a hot-button topic. I suspect this might be the case here as well -- I have not read the judgement yet. However, to have

by ptero 9y ago

This is often the case, especially with a hot-button topic. I suspect this might be the case here as well -- I have not read the judgement yet. However, to have an informative discussion, can you provide a TL; DR summary. The main question I personally have is if can I still film anything and everyone on public property or has this been curtailed in some way shape or form.

Brendinooo 9y ago
I scanned through the dockets a bit; scroll down to see my post. As far as I see it, the author of the article leads you to believe that 'public' means 'any public space' when in fact the court was ruling about filming in 'public proceedings', which is completely different.
- roninb 9y ago
  Wait, where do you see anywhere in the ruling a decision about anything other than whether the judge should've been recused or not...?
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Section II B, about the summary judgement and the motion to dismiss. It's very short because the appeals court ruled that the district court was correct "without opinion".
    - roninb 9y ago
      But again, that literally has nothing to do with filming in court and only whether or not the judge should've recused themself... Where in "Akins also argues that the district court erred by granting the motions todismiss and for summary judgment filed by the defendants and by denying his ownmotion for partial summary judgment" is there anything about filming anyone?
      - leereeves 9y ago
        In that those rulings by the district court dismissed Akin's claims that his rights were violated by police retaliating for his filming.
- ptero 9y ago
  IANAL, so if someone decides to hold public proceedings in a public place, can I still film this (because it is a public place) or not (because terrorism/policy/precedent/whatever)?
  - Brendinooo 9y ago
    Take a look at one of the older dockets on the case and decide for yourself what they're saying: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missouri/mowdce/2:2015cv04096/121651/117 https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missou... Page 14, sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 are the incidents relevant to filming. With respect to section 5, Akins filmed in the lobby, was asked to stop, and the person who asked him to stop was told that he was in the wrong for saying so. Section 6, he wasn't allowed into a media event because there wasn't a ton of space and he didn't have credentials. Section 7, he was posting video to the PD's and the city's Facebook pages and they removed the videos. These are discussed on page 34, last paragraph. Seems like Akins is more interested in retaliation charges, and that's what the court is addressing here. The "he has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceedings he wishes to" seems a bit out of place as I re-read it, but I guess it's just establishing a baseline? I'm not sure what specifically the statement is meant to respond to. The only thing that seems like public proceeding is the media event, and so in that context the judge is saying that I can't just bust in with a smartphone and say I have a constitutional right to record the event.
    - ptero 9y ago
      Thank you for the info!
roninb 9y ago
It's literally linked in the article in full. It's only like 5 pages long. Very clear and obvious that this case had nothing to do with whether you could or couldn't film a public official in public...

by ptero 9y ago

Brendinooo 9y ago

I scanned through the dockets a bit; scroll down to see my post. As far as I see it, the author of the article leads you to believe that 'public' means 'any public space' when in fact the court was ruling about filming in 'public proceedings', which is completely different.

roninb 9y ago
Wait, where do you see anywhere in the ruling a decision about anything other than whether the judge should've been recused or not...?
- leereeves 9y ago
  Section II B, about the summary judgement and the motion to dismiss. It's very short because the appeals court ruled that the district court was correct "without opinion".
  - roninb 9y ago
    But again, that literally has nothing to do with filming in court and only whether or not the judge should've recused themself... Where in "Akins also argues that the district court erred by granting the motions todismiss and for summary judgment filed by the defendants and by denying his ownmotion for partial summary judgment" is there anything about filming anyone?
    - leereeves 9y ago
      In that those rulings by the district court dismissed Akin's claims that his rights were violated by police retaliating for his filming.
ptero 9y ago
IANAL, so if someone decides to hold public proceedings in a public place, can I still film this (because it is a public place) or not (because terrorism/policy/precedent/whatever)?
- Brendinooo 9y ago
  Take a look at one of the older dockets on the case and decide for yourself what they're saying: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missouri/mowdce/2:2015cv04096/121651/117 https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missou... Page 14, sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 are the incidents relevant to filming. With respect to section 5, Akins filmed in the lobby, was asked to stop, and the person who asked him to stop was told that he was in the wrong for saying so. Section 6, he wasn't allowed into a media event because there wasn't a ton of space and he didn't have credentials. Section 7, he was posting video to the PD's and the city's Facebook pages and they removed the videos. These are discussed on page 34, last paragraph. Seems like Akins is more interested in retaliation charges, and that's what the court is addressing here. The "he has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceedings he wishes to" seems a bit out of place as I re-read it, but I guess it's just establishing a baseline? I'm not sure what specifically the statement is meant to respond to. The only thing that seems like public proceeding is the media event, and so in that context the judge is saying that I can't just bust in with a smartphone and say I have a constitutional right to record the event.
  - ptero 9y ago
    Thank you for the info!

roninb 9y ago

It's literally linked in the article in full. It's only like 5 pages long. Very clear and obvious that this case had nothing to do with whether you could or couldn't film a public official in public...