5 ms·

Ever heard of the first amendment?

by jolux 5y ago

stale2002 5y ago
They were arrested or anything. So I don't see the problem.
vxNsr 5y ago
The OP said the cop was harassing them… the only harassment appeared to be coming from the crowd.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  I just watched the video in the article. Seems like everyone is calm. But the man with the gun on his hip seems to be demanding the crowd change their behavior due to some issue with a banner. Whether you call that harassment or not I suppose is a matter of perspective.
  - vxNsr 5y ago
    That’s not really true tho right? they mock him, they hurl insults, at the end we can hear them telling him he has no life… I understand that we’re now entering a phase of cognitive dissonance, but it’s always surprising to see it so starkly represented.
  - sigzero 5y ago
    Then you watched a different video. The crowd was not "calm".
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- jolux 5y ago
  Point being, cops aren’t actually allowed to retaliate, or stop you from filming them, just because they don’t like what you’re saying. They are required to let you speak and film.
  - gowld 5y ago
    Not entirely true. Disturbing the Peace is an offense that police can respond to.
  - vxNsr 5y ago
    Let’s be clear, there was no retaliation. You’re making up laws to be able to claim the cops violated something and thus justify your anger. The truth is the cop is at best misguided about a civil matter (dmca take downs on YouTube) and is attempting to prevent the many people online from raging on him and his family while he attempts to do his job to the best of his abilities.
    - pc86 5y ago
      Attempting to stop the distribution of Constitutionally protected speech isn't retaliation?
      - vxNsr 5y ago
        It’s unclear to me how recording something is a first amendment issue at all, let alone a speech issue. TheVerge makes this unsubstantiated claim and many people here accept it, but I struggle to understand how the first amendment protects recording something. ::Edit:: I’m being rate limited due to getting flagged and downvoted so I’ll reply here: The EFF link keeps calling it a 1st amendment right, but doesn’t actually explain how it’s falls under the first amendment. The ACLU does much the same thing, tho, they do say it pertains to “information gathering” which still feels like a stretch. They both also appear to be very clear that it’s about recording police, vs private citizens. Which again, is confusing bec the first amendment doesn’t mention public vs private. I’m not saying it’s not protected, I’m just saying it’s not clear to me how it pertains in anyway to the first amendment. Regardless of whether it’s protected though, it’s still not retaliation or even illegal to for someone to try to protect their family from an internet mob
        woodruffw 5y ago
        > but I struggle to understand how the first amendment protects recording something. The public's right to record the police is well established under the First Amendment[1][2]. The Verge doesn't substantiate it because, well, it's conventional wisdom. [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendment-right-record-police https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendme... [2]: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/right-record-police-doesnt-disappear-when-you-put-your-phone-your-pocket https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/right-record-police-do...

Ever heard of the first amendment?

by jolux 5y ago

Ever heard of the first amendment?

stale2002 5y ago

They were arrested or anything. So I don't see the problem.

vxNsr 5y ago

The OP said the cop was harassing them… the only harassment appeared to be coming from the crowd.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I just watched the video in the article. Seems like everyone is calm. But the man with the gun on his hip seems to be demanding the crowd change their behavior due to some issue with a banner. Whether you call that harassment or not I suppose is a matter of perspective.
- vxNsr 5y ago
  That’s not really true tho right? they mock him, they hurl insults, at the end we can hear them telling him he has no life… I understand that we’re now entering a phase of cognitive dissonance, but it’s always surprising to see it so starkly represented.
- sigzero 5y ago
  Then you watched a different video. The crowd was not "calm".
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
jolux 5y ago
Point being, cops aren’t actually allowed to retaliate, or stop you from filming them, just because they don’t like what you’re saying. They are required to let you speak and film.
- gowld 5y ago
  Not entirely true. Disturbing the Peace is an offense that police can respond to.
- vxNsr 5y ago
  Let’s be clear, there was no retaliation. You’re making up laws to be able to claim the cops violated something and thus justify your anger. The truth is the cop is at best misguided about a civil matter (dmca take downs on YouTube) and is attempting to prevent the many people online from raging on him and his family while he attempts to do his job to the best of his abilities.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Attempting to stop the distribution of Constitutionally protected speech isn't retaliation?
    - vxNsr 5y ago
      It’s unclear to me how recording something is a first amendment issue at all, let alone a speech issue. TheVerge makes this unsubstantiated claim and many people here accept it, but I struggle to understand how the first amendment protects recording something. ::Edit:: I’m being rate limited due to getting flagged and downvoted so I’ll reply here: The EFF link keeps calling it a 1st amendment right, but doesn’t actually explain how it’s falls under the first amendment. The ACLU does much the same thing, tho, they do say it pertains to “information gathering” which still feels like a stretch. They both also appear to be very clear that it’s about recording police, vs private citizens. Which again, is confusing bec the first amendment doesn’t mention public vs private. I’m not saying it’s not protected, I’m just saying it’s not clear to me how it pertains in anyway to the first amendment. Regardless of whether it’s protected though, it’s still not retaliation or even illegal to for someone to try to protect their family from an internet mob
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        > but I struggle to understand how the first amendment protects recording something. The public's right to record the police is well established under the First Amendment[1][2]. The Verge doesn't substantiate it because, well, it's conventional wisdom. [1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendment-right-record-police https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendme... [2]: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/right-record-police-doesnt-disappear-when-you-put-your-phone-your-pocket https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/right-record-police-do...