4 ms·

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

by 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...
    - gknoy 5y ago
      'woodruffw beat me to it, but I'll quote from the EFF's page that he links: """Federal courts and the Justice Department have recognized the right of individuals to record the police. Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, there is a long line of First Amendment case law from the high court that supports the right to record the police. And federal appellate courts in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have directly upheld this right""" They go into more detail in one of the amicus briefs that they link to in the text that I was quoting [0]. 0: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rollins-1st-cir https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rolli...
    - handrous 5y ago
      > I’m just saying it’s not clear to me how it pertains in anyway to the first amendment. The EFF link itself links to: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rollins-1st-cir https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rolli... Among many others, which contain a rabbit-trail of case law to explore. The ACLU article links directly to: https://www.aclum.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/20181210_martinevans_memo_order.pdf https://www.aclum.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/20... Which is a court ruling that appears to be directly relevant to the questions you're asking, and contains a similar rabbit trail of other case law (one "Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)", in particular, is repeatedly cited). This is what one encounters pretty much any time one asks "why is/isn't [thing] constitutional under [amendment]"? Lots of reading. The short answer is just, "courts have ruled it so".
    - 5y ago

by 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...
  - gknoy 5y ago
    'woodruffw beat me to it, but I'll quote from the EFF's page that he links: """Federal courts and the Justice Department have recognized the right of individuals to record the police. Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, there is a long line of First Amendment case law from the high court that supports the right to record the police. And federal appellate courts in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have directly upheld this right""" They go into more detail in one of the amicus briefs that they link to in the text that I was quoting [0]. 0: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rollins-1st-cir https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rolli...
  - handrous 5y ago
    > I’m just saying it’s not clear to me how it pertains in anyway to the first amendment. The EFF link itself links to: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rollins-1st-cir https://www.eff.org/document/eff-amicus-brief-martin-v-rolli... Among many others, which contain a rabbit-trail of case law to explore. The ACLU article links directly to: https://www.aclum.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/20181210_martinevans_memo_order.pdf https://www.aclum.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/20... Which is a court ruling that appears to be directly relevant to the questions you're asking, and contains a similar rabbit trail of other case law (one "Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)", in particular, is repeatedly cited). This is what one encounters pretty much any time one asks "why is/isn't [thing] constitutional under [amendment]"? Lots of reading. The short answer is just, "courts have ruled it so".
  - 5y ago