4 ms·

>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 mak

• 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.