4 ms·

"explicitly attempting to deny you your 1st Amendment right " I disagree. It's YouTube that is denying your first amendment right. You have the right to record

"explicitly attempting to deny you your 1st Amendment right " I disagree. It's YouTube that is denying your first amendment right. You have the right to record the officer, but you have no right nor control over what the officer can do. There is absolutely no law against playing a taylor swift song, as distasteful as it may be. He's not stopping the person filming. There is explicit, and there is reality, and this just doesn't rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

cforrester 5y ago
I can't speak to the actual legality, but I strongly feel that a less-dysfunctional system would account for the intent of the officer. It is undeniably an attempt to suppress widespread dissemination of video documentation of their actions, by taking advantage of a known flaw in the technology most commonly used to do so. At the very least, this should be a fireable offence on the first infraction, akin to tampering with their body camera.
- A-Train 5y ago
  And I disagree with you. The police officer is not doing anything wrong he is only utilizing a strange loophole. Is an actor wearing a reflective hat is breaking law by preventing paparazzis of using the photos in tabloids? Why should they make it easy to post the video on youtube which is a commercial platform that has nothing to do with any kind of law. The video of the police officer can be manipulated too to show limited context. If he was breaking the law the video can be used in the court no problem. They can also write an article or describe it on twitter. I think the issue is that people are entitled and intoxicated by their "freedom" and publicity. It is not enough if what people say is consumed it must be mass consumed. The freedom of mass publicity is limited by DMCA takedown.
  - chucksta 5y ago
    An actor isn't employed by the state to uphold laws. They should be boasting to upload it to YT, to show they've done nothing wrong. The adage turned around "well if you've got nothing to hide", seems to fit. Sure the video could still be held as legal evidence, but the uproar required to get the attention to get it there will not be possible. People aren't upset police are doing this because it's infringing on their right to record, it's infringing on their limited ability to hold them accountable.
Taek 5y ago
YouTube isn't trying to deny your first amendment right, it's incidentally enabling your first amendment right to be denied. Which I do think is a bad thing, and YouTube should not have automated systems that can be exploited to violate people's rights, but the intention of YouTube is certainly not to violate rights, and the intention of the officer certainly is to violate rights.

cforrester 5y ago

I can't speak to the actual legality, but I strongly feel that a less-dysfunctional system would account for the intent of the officer. It is undeniably an attempt to suppress widespread dissemination of video documentation of their actions, by taking advantage of a known flaw in the technology most commonly used to do so. At the very least, this should be a fireable offence on the first infraction, akin to tampering with their body camera.

A-Train 5y ago
And I disagree with you. The police officer is not doing anything wrong he is only utilizing a strange loophole. Is an actor wearing a reflective hat is breaking law by preventing paparazzis of using the photos in tabloids? Why should they make it easy to post the video on youtube which is a commercial platform that has nothing to do with any kind of law. The video of the police officer can be manipulated too to show limited context. If he was breaking the law the video can be used in the court no problem. They can also write an article or describe it on twitter. I think the issue is that people are entitled and intoxicated by their "freedom" and publicity. It is not enough if what people say is consumed it must be mass consumed. The freedom of mass publicity is limited by DMCA takedown.
- chucksta 5y ago
  An actor isn't employed by the state to uphold laws. They should be boasting to upload it to YT, to show they've done nothing wrong. The adage turned around "well if you've got nothing to hide", seems to fit. Sure the video could still be held as legal evidence, but the uproar required to get the attention to get it there will not be possible. People aren't upset police are doing this because it's infringing on their right to record, it's infringing on their limited ability to hold them accountable.

Taek 5y ago

YouTube isn't trying to deny your first amendment right, it's incidentally enabling your first amendment right to be denied. Which I do think is a bad thing, and YouTube should not have automated systems that can be exploited to violate people's rights, but the intention of YouTube is certainly not to violate rights, and the intention of the officer certainly is to violate rights.