4 ms·

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 s

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.

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.