As I understand it, the problem isn't so much with the details of this particular case. Rather it is with the precedent that it sets. It does strike me as odd

As I understand it, the problem isn't so much with the details of this particular case. Rather it is with the precedent that it sets. It does strike me as odd that the headline references filming police when the interpretation appears to apply to any exercises of speech (e.g. protest). However, that makes the situation worse not better. In terms of the discussion of "loitering": I think the larger point is that there are numerous similarly broad laws that could be used as a pretext for probable cause. For example, disturbing the peace.