4 ms·

This definitely would not pass constitutional muster. It's been clearly established that if it's happening in public, it's fair game. Furthermore, I'd imagine t

This definitely would not pass constitutional muster. It's been clearly established that if it's happening in public, it's fair game. Furthermore, I'd imagine the onus would be on the Police to affirmatively prove that the person is interfering - they couldn't just say "you're interfering with me, turn it off". This is a horrible law.

pif 4y ago
From the article: > Violators could face a misdemeanor, but only after being verbally warned and continuing to record anyway. > Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police... They are working, you are not involved, they ask you to not interfere, you cannot be bothered to move a couple yards, and the constitution should worry about you? > This is a horrible law. No, this is just prejudice on your side or lack of reading comprehension... or of reading at all.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  what a bootlicking understanding of cop behavior
- peeters 4y ago
  >> Violators could face a misdemeanor, but only after being verbally warned and continuing to record anyway. > Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police... > They are working, you are not involved, they ask you to not interfere, you cannot be bothered to move a couple yards, and the constitution should worry about you? Everything you just detailed has just as much relevance to people who are not recording. Why do you think the law called out recording within that radius?
- Miner49er 4y ago
  It's clearly in violation of the 1st amendment.
- ahiknsr 4y ago
  > and the constitution should worry about you? Yes.
nxm 4y ago
You have a right to bear arms , but yet states keep passing restrictions. How is this any different?
- metadat 4y ago
  Guns are used to murder people, phones and cameras are not effective physical weapons.
willcipriano 4y ago
While I agree with you, we have had a lot of "free speech/the constitution isn't absolute" talk lately. I sort of hope a court upholds this to teach that crowd the error of their ways.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

pif 4y ago

From the article: > Violators could face a misdemeanor, but only after being verbally warned and continuing to record anyway. > Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police... They are working, you are not involved, they ask you to not interfere, you cannot be bothered to move a couple yards, and the constitution should worry about you? > This is a horrible law. No, this is just prejudice on your side or lack of reading comprehension... or of reading at all.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
what a bootlicking understanding of cop behavior
peeters 4y ago
>> Violators could face a misdemeanor, but only after being verbally warned and continuing to record anyway. > Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police... > They are working, you are not involved, they ask you to not interfere, you cannot be bothered to move a couple yards, and the constitution should worry about you? Everything you just detailed has just as much relevance to people who are not recording. Why do you think the law called out recording within that radius?
Miner49er 4y ago
It's clearly in violation of the 1st amendment.
ahiknsr 4y ago
> and the constitution should worry about you? Yes.

nxm 4y ago

You have a right to bear arms , but yet states keep passing restrictions. How is this any different?

metadat 4y ago
Guns are used to murder people, phones and cameras are not effective physical weapons.

willcipriano 4y ago

While I agree with you, we have had a lot of "free speech/the constitution isn't absolute" talk lately. I sort of hope a court upholds this to teach that crowd the error of their ways.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]