6 ms·

> Sure, it's egregiously unconstitutional; but just as you say, I wouldn't want to be the one hiring the attorneys. How is it unconstitutional exactly? People

by dvt 5y ago

> Sure, it's egregiously unconstitutional; but just as you say, I wouldn't want to be the one hiring the attorneys. How is it unconstitutional exactly? People seem to throw that term around willy-nilly. It is, however, problematic because it overreaches -- for example, being expected to blur out badge numbers or officer names is needlessly onerous for the reporter of a police encounter.

ashtonkem 5y ago
It seems unconstitutional to me; you have no expectation of privacy when you’re out in public, and badge numbers are legally required to be worn. This combination in effect turns into a requirement to either not film, or not post videos of cops, which is unconstitutional.
- dvt 5y ago
  > not post videos of cops, which is unconstitutional Just to be clear, you're not allowed to post videos of plenty of things (Area-51, a meeting between the Joint Chiefs, closed sessions in Congress, etc.). But you're right that you're allowed to record videos of cops in public[1]. I think the law in question is about personally-identifiable information. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1578557.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1578557.html
  - perihelions 5y ago
    It's perfectly legal to post videos of any of those things.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      It is illegal to post a whole lot of videos you might find pretty innocuous. A not insignificant portion of America has two party consent laws[1] that really restrict what you're able to record when it comes to private individuals. It has been pretty clearly decided highlighted that police do not enjoy this commonly held right[2] due to the sensitivity of their role but I really don't know if that same restriction extends to other public offices when acting in a non-public manner (i.e. the JCS) - I am really not familiar with the specific exceptions the above comment laid out so I won't comment on them... but it is illegal to post a whole bunch of different sorts of videos. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#Two-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#... 2. 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...
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        It’s illegal to record without consent in some states. Posting such a recording is problematic because it’s evidence of a crime, not a crime in and of itself. If it were, there would be cases of journalists posting transcripts from illegally recorded conversations, which isn’t happening.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
leesalminen 5y ago
IANAL, however my understanding is that the First Amendment protects ones’ ability to record police officers in public when acting in an official capacity. I suppose the Supreme Court will have to rule on the issue of blurring our badge numbers during the course of a protected activity. But this does seem related to the constitution through the First Amendment.
- canadianfella 5y ago
  I don’t understand why your sexual preferences are relevant.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I think it'd really depend on whether this communication was framed as being from a private organization against the public organization or against the private individual of the officer's own person. And even then it'd likely get mired in a lot of concerns about public safety. One of the more sane elevated rights police officers have long enjoyed is the right to extreme privacy - their phone numbers and addresses are unlisted by default and sharing the private information of an officer with malicious intent carries a more serious penalty than an equivalent action against a regular individual. Police officers face an elevated level of danger in their personal lives from persons they've arrested or interacted with - if you could spin this website as providing information that makes it easier to identify and harass problematic officers (even if they deserve a significant amount of scrutiny) you'll likely have a strong case to have the site shutdown.
  - WoahNoun 5y ago
    Sounds pretty cowardly and against the principle of community policing.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - rmah 5y ago
    One of the more sane elevated rights police officers have long enjoyed is the right to extreme privacy - their phone numbers and addresses are unlisted by default and sharing the private information of an officer with malicious intent carries a more serious penalty than an equivalent action against a regular individual. Most people these days seem to be confused about what the term "secret police" means. It doesn't mean a police forces that the public don't know exists. It means a police force that has as some of its members, people whos identities are secret. You know, like the NKVD or STASI. I was taught as a kid 30 years ago, during the cold war, that having a secret police was a key indicator of an oppressive regime. What you describe as "sane elevated rights" was something I was taught that we needed to fight tooth and nail, possibly with nuclear weapons. I guess times change. Sometimes I feel like crying.
tshaddox 5y ago
Seems about as blatant of a violation of freedom of speech as one can imagine. They’re public officials. Their personal information (name, role, jurisdiction, salary, etc.) ought to be actively published by the government. To make it illegal to publish that information is just ludicrous. Heck, I used to remember when police had to literally wear a badge that publicized their name.
- dvt 5y ago
  > They’re public officials They're not elected, nor are they "public persons." There are plenty of regular folks working for the city, including analysts, beat cops, secretaries, and so on. This is extremely reductive.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > They're not elected Who said they were? > nor are they public They work in the public sector. That's what 'public' means.
    - subroutine 5y ago
      I think op is saying there's a difference between, for example, the Chief of Police (a public person), and an undercover police detective. I think it's unreasonable to require all government employees, from DMV janitors to CalTrans technicians, to police detectives, to have a public profile. Is there any current law that stipulates otherwise (applies to all gov employees)?
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        If they're taking public money of course they should be accountable to the public.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        5y ago
8ytecoder 5y ago
IANAL either, but I'd expect anything that puts onerous restrictions on speech to be unconstitutional. Usually these "over-enthusiastic" laws don't define the restrictions in a narrow scope. It all boils down to the definition of PII in this law, for example. If it's narrowly and clearly defined it could pass the first amendment test. If it's not clear and instead has the effect of chilling speech because of that, it'll get thrown out. I mean the Supreme Court just threw out the donor disclosure requirement in CA because it could have the effect of stifling free speech.

by dvt 5y ago

ashtonkem 5y ago

It seems unconstitutional to me; you have no expectation of privacy when you’re out in public, and badge numbers are legally required to be worn. This combination in effect turns into a requirement to either not film, or not post videos of cops, which is unconstitutional.

dvt 5y ago
> not post videos of cops, which is unconstitutional Just to be clear, you're not allowed to post videos of plenty of things (Area-51, a meeting between the Joint Chiefs, closed sessions in Congress, etc.). But you're right that you're allowed to record videos of cops in public[1]. I think the law in question is about personally-identifiable information. [1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1578557.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1578557.html
- perihelions 5y ago
  It's perfectly legal to post videos of any of those things.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    It is illegal to post a whole lot of videos you might find pretty innocuous. A not insignificant portion of America has two party consent laws[1] that really restrict what you're able to record when it comes to private individuals. It has been pretty clearly decided highlighted that police do not enjoy this commonly held right[2] due to the sensitivity of their role but I really don't know if that same restriction extends to other public offices when acting in a non-public manner (i.e. the JCS) - I am really not familiar with the specific exceptions the above comment laid out so I won't comment on them... but it is illegal to post a whole bunch of different sorts of videos. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#Two-party_consent_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#... 2. 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...
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      It’s illegal to record without consent in some states. Posting such a recording is problematic because it’s evidence of a crime, not a crime in and of itself. If it were, there would be cases of journalists posting transcripts from illegally recorded conversations, which isn’t happening.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

leesalminen 5y ago

IANAL, however my understanding is that the First Amendment protects ones’ ability to record police officers in public when acting in an official capacity. I suppose the Supreme Court will have to rule on the issue of blurring our badge numbers during the course of a protected activity. But this does seem related to the constitution through the First Amendment.

canadianfella 5y ago
I don’t understand why your sexual preferences are relevant.
munk-a 5y ago
I think it'd really depend on whether this communication was framed as being from a private organization against the public organization or against the private individual of the officer's own person. And even then it'd likely get mired in a lot of concerns about public safety. One of the more sane elevated rights police officers have long enjoyed is the right to extreme privacy - their phone numbers and addresses are unlisted by default and sharing the private information of an officer with malicious intent carries a more serious penalty than an equivalent action against a regular individual. Police officers face an elevated level of danger in their personal lives from persons they've arrested or interacted with - if you could spin this website as providing information that makes it easier to identify and harass problematic officers (even if they deserve a significant amount of scrutiny) you'll likely have a strong case to have the site shutdown.
- WoahNoun 5y ago
  Sounds pretty cowardly and against the principle of community policing.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- rmah 5y ago
  One of the more sane elevated rights police officers have long enjoyed is the right to extreme privacy - their phone numbers and addresses are unlisted by default and sharing the private information of an officer with malicious intent carries a more serious penalty than an equivalent action against a regular individual. Most people these days seem to be confused about what the term "secret police" means. It doesn't mean a police forces that the public don't know exists. It means a police force that has as some of its members, people whos identities are secret. You know, like the NKVD or STASI. I was taught as a kid 30 years ago, during the cold war, that having a secret police was a key indicator of an oppressive regime. What you describe as "sane elevated rights" was something I was taught that we needed to fight tooth and nail, possibly with nuclear weapons. I guess times change. Sometimes I feel like crying.

tshaddox 5y ago

Seems about as blatant of a violation of freedom of speech as one can imagine. They’re public officials. Their personal information (name, role, jurisdiction, salary, etc.) ought to be actively published by the government. To make it illegal to publish that information is just ludicrous. Heck, I used to remember when police had to literally wear a badge that publicized their name.

dvt 5y ago
> They’re public officials They're not elected, nor are they "public persons." There are plenty of regular folks working for the city, including analysts, beat cops, secretaries, and so on. This is extremely reductive.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > They're not elected Who said they were? > nor are they public They work in the public sector. That's what 'public' means.
  - subroutine 5y ago
    I think op is saying there's a difference between, for example, the Chief of Police (a public person), and an undercover police detective. I think it's unreasonable to require all government employees, from DMV janitors to CalTrans technicians, to police detectives, to have a public profile. Is there any current law that stipulates otherwise (applies to all gov employees)?
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      If they're taking public money of course they should be accountable to the public.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - 5y ago

8ytecoder 5y ago

IANAL either, but I'd expect anything that puts onerous restrictions on speech to be unconstitutional. Usually these "over-enthusiastic" laws don't define the restrictions in a narrow scope. It all boils down to the definition of PII in this law, for example. If it's narrowly and clearly defined it could pass the first amendment test. If it's not clear and instead has the effect of chilling speech because of that, it'll get thrown out. I mean the Supreme Court just threw out the donor disclosure requirement in CA because it could have the effect of stifling free speech.