4 ms·

Citizens aren't prevented from filming. They are prevented from uploading video to social media. There is an important difference. In this case I suspect the p

by 99_00 6y ago

Citizens aren't prevented from filming. They are prevented from uploading video to social media. There is an important difference. In this case I suspect the person filming is well known to the police for filming and has a long history of interaction with them.

saagarjha 6y ago
I don't think anyone is claiming that playing music is preventing people from filming?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  There have been proposals to have hardware refuse to record copyrighted works. Though of course if that was the context then "citizens aren't prevented from filming" wouldn't be true anyway.
jedberg 6y ago
An argument can be made that uploading to social media is part of the "recording" process. If they put their hand in front of the lens, are they preventing recording? If they take the phone and put it in a box but leave it on, are they preventing recording?
- 99_00 6y ago
  >An argument can be made that uploading to social media is part of the "recording" process. I'd be interested in hearing that argument. Please go ahead and make it.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    The act of recording is making a record of an event. The recording isn't complete until the record is made permanent. If you're live-streaming to social media, the record is being created on the social media site. The recording is not complete until it is saved on that site.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - dghlsakjg 6y ago
    The supreme court has upheld that a 'chilling effect' (an action that does not directly stop free speech, but has the intent of discouraging it) is an invalid limitation on free speech. They have also ruled that filming and disseminating footage of police is protected speech. If the officer's intent is playing music with the outcome of causing an invalid copyright strike or otherwise causing harm to the citizen, then it could be easily argued that the officer is restricting free speech. Uploading the video to social media would be considered protected speech in the sense that it would be unconstitutional for a government agent to intentionally act in a way that prevents it. The intent is critical here, and the officer would have to defend himself by justifying his bizarre behavior.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    It's a livestream - without the upload, nothing gets recorded. It's as much a part of the recording process as film is in an analogue camera. This specific act would be the direct analogue of ripping film out of a camera and exposing it to light so it can't be developed.
liquidify 6y ago
You only point out a fact here. I don't think you are implying that it is ok for cops to be doing something that is specifically to prevent open sharing of their behavior via common 'platforms'. I also don't think your comment related to the implications at all... which is why your comment is provocative. I wanted to react negatively, accusing you of willful subversion, but all I can do is wonder if you did this intentionally knowing that you would get a reaction. Regardless, I'll explain why your statement is meaningless. Police are here to serve and protect. They serve at the public's discretion. If they do anything to reduce awareness of the public's ability to analyze their performance or behavior while on duty, they are no longer serving or protecting. They should be fired.
- 99_00 6y ago
  >They serve at the public's discretion. If they do anything to reduce awareness of the public's ability to analyze their performance or behavior while on duty, they are no longer serving or protecting. They should be fired. Social media isn't a great source of truth and transparency.

by 99_00 6y ago

saagarjha 6y ago

I don't think anyone is claiming that playing music is preventing people from filming?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
There have been proposals to have hardware refuse to record copyrighted works. Though of course if that was the context then "citizens aren't prevented from filming" wouldn't be true anyway.

jedberg 6y ago

An argument can be made that uploading to social media is part of the "recording" process. If they put their hand in front of the lens, are they preventing recording? If they take the phone and put it in a box but leave it on, are they preventing recording?

99_00 6y ago
>An argument can be made that uploading to social media is part of the "recording" process. I'd be interested in hearing that argument. Please go ahead and make it.
- jedberg 6y ago
  The act of recording is making a record of an event. The recording isn't complete until the record is made permanent. If you're live-streaming to social media, the record is being created on the social media site. The recording is not complete until it is saved on that site.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- dghlsakjg 6y ago
  The supreme court has upheld that a 'chilling effect' (an action that does not directly stop free speech, but has the intent of discouraging it) is an invalid limitation on free speech. They have also ruled that filming and disseminating footage of police is protected speech. If the officer's intent is playing music with the outcome of causing an invalid copyright strike or otherwise causing harm to the citizen, then it could be easily argued that the officer is restricting free speech. Uploading the video to social media would be considered protected speech in the sense that it would be unconstitutional for a government agent to intentionally act in a way that prevents it. The intent is critical here, and the officer would have to defend himself by justifying his bizarre behavior.
- jjk166 6y ago
  It's a livestream - without the upload, nothing gets recorded. It's as much a part of the recording process as film is in an analogue camera. This specific act would be the direct analogue of ripping film out of a camera and exposing it to light so it can't be developed.

liquidify 6y ago

You only point out a fact here. I don't think you are implying that it is ok for cops to be doing something that is specifically to prevent open sharing of their behavior via common 'platforms'. I also don't think your comment related to the implications at all... which is why your comment is provocative. I wanted to react negatively, accusing you of willful subversion, but all I can do is wonder if you did this intentionally knowing that you would get a reaction. Regardless, I'll explain why your statement is meaningless. Police are here to serve and protect. They serve at the public's discretion. If they do anything to reduce awareness of the public's ability to analyze their performance or behavior while on duty, they are no longer serving or protecting. They should be fired.

99_00 6y ago
>They serve at the public's discretion. If they do anything to reduce awareness of the public's ability to analyze their performance or behavior while on duty, they are no longer serving or protecting. They should be fired. Social media isn't a great source of truth and transparency.