4 ms·

Under which amendment?

by weberer 4y ago

feet 4y ago
The first... It covers journalism and reporting
- eesmith 4y ago
  For more details, https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-the-press/photography-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center... . This is probably the most specific: > Photographing or more commonly videotaping police activity is one of the most contentious areas of photographer/videographer rights. When it comes to filming police activity, the federal courts are not in agreement as to whether there is even a right to do it. In a case about prisoner punishment, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right … in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Hope v. Pelzer (2002) > Two U.S. Circuit courts, the 1st and the 11th, say that there is a right to photograph/videotape police activity. The 9th Circuit provides some protection if police activity is considered a “matter of public interest.” Courts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have said that the right to videotape the police has not conclusively been established. Courts in the remaining circuits have not ruled directly on the issue. AZ is in the 9th circuit: > In its 1995 opinion in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, the 9th Circuit stated that there is a First Amendment right to “film matters of public interest.” ... > The question of whether a person has the right to photograph or videotape police activities in the 9th Circuit has not been directly addressed and, thus, has not been fully answered.
  - feet 4y ago
    >For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right I always thought that reporting on the government was the entire literal point of the first amendment covering journalism and reporting
    - eesmith 4y ago
      That part of it deals with qualified immunity for violating a constitutional right. Here's the opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-309.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-309.ZO.html .
      - feet 4y ago
        Does that mean that US police officers don't know the amendments of the constitution? I knew they weren't required to know the law, but to not know the basic amendments seems absolutely insane It sounds to me like police have carte-blanche to do whatever they want with zero regard for actual laws
        eesmith 4y ago
        The 1st amendment is not absolute. There are well-known time/place/manner restrictions, copyright and libel restrictions, and more. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity: > qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". From the link I gave, "The question of whether a person has the right to photograph or videotape police activities in the 9th Circuit has not been directly addressed and, thus, has not been fully answered. ... Courts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have said that the right to videotape the police has not conclusively been established." Since these are not "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights", the police officer has qualified immunity. That all said, you've nailed it on the head. 'Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has noted a "disturbing trend" of siding with police officers using excessive force with qualified immunity,[45] describing it as "sanctioning a 'shoot first, think later' approach to policing".' , quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#Police_brutality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#Police_brut...

Under which amendment?

feet 4y ago

The first... It covers journalism and reporting

eesmith 4y ago
For more details, https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-the-press/photography-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center... . This is probably the most specific: > Photographing or more commonly videotaping police activity is one of the most contentious areas of photographer/videographer rights. When it comes to filming police activity, the federal courts are not in agreement as to whether there is even a right to do it. In a case about prisoner punishment, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right … in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Hope v. Pelzer (2002) > Two U.S. Circuit courts, the 1st and the 11th, say that there is a right to photograph/videotape police activity. The 9th Circuit provides some protection if police activity is considered a “matter of public interest.” Courts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have said that the right to videotape the police has not conclusively been established. Courts in the remaining circuits have not ruled directly on the issue. AZ is in the 9th circuit: > In its 1995 opinion in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, the 9th Circuit stated that there is a First Amendment right to “film matters of public interest.” ... > The question of whether a person has the right to photograph or videotape police activities in the 9th Circuit has not been directly addressed and, thus, has not been fully answered.
- feet 4y ago
  >For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right I always thought that reporting on the government was the entire literal point of the first amendment covering journalism and reporting
  - eesmith 4y ago
    That part of it deals with qualified immunity for violating a constitutional right. Here's the opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-309.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-309.ZO.html .
    - feet 4y ago
      Does that mean that US police officers don't know the amendments of the constitution? I knew they weren't required to know the law, but to not know the basic amendments seems absolutely insane It sounds to me like police have carte-blanche to do whatever they want with zero regard for actual laws
      - eesmith 4y ago
        The 1st amendment is not absolute. There are well-known time/place/manner restrictions, copyright and libel restrictions, and more. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity: > qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". From the link I gave, "The question of whether a person has the right to photograph or videotape police activities in the 9th Circuit has not been directly addressed and, thus, has not been fully answered. ... Courts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have said that the right to videotape the police has not conclusively been established." Since these are not "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights", the police officer has qualified immunity. That all said, you've nailed it on the head. 'Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has noted a "disturbing trend" of siding with police officers using excessive force with qualified immunity,[45] describing it as "sanctioning a 'shoot first, think later' approach to policing".' , quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#Police_brutality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#Police_brut...