7 ms·

no, the default is that it's legal to film within 8 ft of police. All laws are inherently restrictive.

by chrsig 4y ago

mattmaroon 4y ago
They really aren’t unless you have an incomplete model of how the legal system works. This is a good example of this. There is no default. Court cases have upheld that it is legal for cops to establish a safety perimeter, even when that distance is undefined. Thus a cop could argue that the necessary safe distance is an arbitrary number like 25 feet or 50 feet. This law defines it as 8, potentially giving you greater freedom. The legal system as a whole is inherently restrictive, but individual laws within it may be otherwise.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > This law defines it as 8, potentially giving you greater freedom. No, this law establishes a new crime and penalty for being closer than 8 feet, without precluding enforcement under other laws: " C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. " https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    It's funny. Authorities can surveil the entire globe with complete impunity but the second citizens start surveilling them all sorts of laws are passed making it illegal. Sousveillance should be a right of every single citizen. This right should be established and authorized.
    - justinpowers 4y ago
      “Sousveillance”, as a term, was new to me. In case it’s new to anyone else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18493797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18493797
  - mattmaroon 4y ago
    Right but much of law is interpretation, by design or by chance, and there’s a very strong likelihood that courts will now interpret 8’ to be the safe distance as a result of this. It’s very probable that before this law, cops could have moved you, say, 25’ away when you were trying to record and gotten away with it in court, whereas now they probably wouldn’t. But for an even less theoretical example, state laws have explicitly legalized marijuana, for instance. If you’ve been in a state before and after (I have, as have most Americans) you saw your freedoms increase (and restrictions decrease) as a result.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      If cops argued before that they needed to keep the public 20' away from incident A-- "totally not" to prevent filming, but for public safety-- that argument doesn't vanish or really weaken now. I understand what you're saying, but this doesn't establish some kind of right to be within 8' of an officer and probably doesn't change the evaluation of most situations substantially. Officers have a whole lot of reasons to want to keep the public farther back- Tueller drills, if I were scuffling with some dude I'd not want a potentially-hostile observer 10' away, standard training about perimeters in static situations, etc. Those don't evaporate, and they generally can be argued for even if the real motivation is preventing filming. > But for an even less theoretical example, state laws have explicitly legalized marijuana, for instance. Yah, I'm not interested in arguing the philosophical question of whether all laws are in some sense prescriptive-- nor of whether removing past restrictions counts as adding a law. I just don't think the AZ public is better off or more able to film with this new law.
Supermancho 4y ago
> All laws are inherently restrictive. Repeals, franchises, permits, etc may include restrictions, but you might be able to imagine circumstances when laws are not uniformly restrictive.
chrisseaton 4y ago
> All laws are inherently restrictive. This isn't the case at all - law can be a precedent that something is permitted, for example.
- bnj 4y ago
  Can a new law explicitly permitting behavior that wasn’t previously prohibited really be said to be alleviating restrictions? Laws are inherently restrictive in the sense that things which aren’t prohibited by law, are permissible. So a law which codifies that something is permissible is useful for clarity, but it doesn’t really release citizens of restrictions.
  - mattmaroon 4y ago
    Yes because things can be restricted due to legal precedent determined by a judge, rather than due to a law, but a law can redefine it to be less restrictive. Imagine as a hypothetical (I know next to nothing about AZ law) that AZ had a law that said cops could enforce a minimum distance from which you could record for safety reasons. Hypothetically, a court case could rule that a cop that wouldn’t let people record from under 25’ was following said law. There’s no law that specifies 25’ in this hypothetical, but now there’s a court precedent that effectively sets it at that. So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom. Also state laws can legalize something that was federally illegal, sort of. See marijuana legalization. (This is really technical and rests on the commerce clause and is debatable, but what’s not debatable is people can now open up a shop and sell weed without ending up in a federal prison whereas before they could not, so freedom has increased.)
    - thfuran 4y ago
      >So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom. A law, but not this law, which explicitly does not grant any right.
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> All laws are inherently restrictive. While the maxim "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" generally holds true for individuals (but not organisations), it is not true that all laws are restrictive. See for example the first amendement of the US constitution which is restrictive towards the legislature and sanctifies rights for individuals or from a more international point of view the first article of the Declaration of Human Rights which states that all men are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

no, the default is that it's legal to film within 8 ft of police. All laws are inherently restrictive.

by chrsig 4y ago

no, the default is that it's legal to film within 8 ft of police. All laws are inherently restrictive.

They really aren’t unless you have an incomplete model of how the legal system works. This is a good example of this. There is no default. Court cases have upheld that it is legal for cops to establish a safety perimeter, even when that distance is undefined. Thus a cop could argue that the necessary safe distance is an arbitrary number like 25 feet or 50 feet. This law defines it as 8, potentially giving you greater freedom. The legal system as a whole is inherently restrictive, but individual laws within it may be otherwise.

mlyle 4y ago
> This law defines it as 8, potentially giving you greater freedom. No, this law establishes a new crime and penalty for being closer than 8 feet, without precluding enforcement under other laws: " C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. " https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  It's funny. Authorities can surveil the entire globe with complete impunity but the second citizens start surveilling them all sorts of laws are passed making it illegal. Sousveillance should be a right of every single citizen. This right should be established and authorized.
  - justinpowers 4y ago
    “Sousveillance”, as a term, was new to me. In case it’s new to anyone else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18493797 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18493797
- mattmaroon 4y ago
  Right but much of law is interpretation, by design or by chance, and there’s a very strong likelihood that courts will now interpret 8’ to be the safe distance as a result of this. It’s very probable that before this law, cops could have moved you, say, 25’ away when you were trying to record and gotten away with it in court, whereas now they probably wouldn’t. But for an even less theoretical example, state laws have explicitly legalized marijuana, for instance. If you’ve been in a state before and after (I have, as have most Americans) you saw your freedoms increase (and restrictions decrease) as a result.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    If cops argued before that they needed to keep the public 20' away from incident A-- "totally not" to prevent filming, but for public safety-- that argument doesn't vanish or really weaken now. I understand what you're saying, but this doesn't establish some kind of right to be within 8' of an officer and probably doesn't change the evaluation of most situations substantially. Officers have a whole lot of reasons to want to keep the public farther back- Tueller drills, if I were scuffling with some dude I'd not want a potentially-hostile observer 10' away, standard training about perimeters in static situations, etc. Those don't evaporate, and they generally can be argued for even if the real motivation is preventing filming. > But for an even less theoretical example, state laws have explicitly legalized marijuana, for instance. Yah, I'm not interested in arguing the philosophical question of whether all laws are in some sense prescriptive-- nor of whether removing past restrictions counts as adding a law. I just don't think the AZ public is better off or more able to film with this new law.

Supermancho 4y ago

> All laws are inherently restrictive. Repeals, franchises, permits, etc may include restrictions, but you might be able to imagine circumstances when laws are not uniformly restrictive.

chrisseaton 4y ago

> All laws are inherently restrictive. This isn't the case at all - law can be a precedent that something is permitted, for example.

bnj 4y ago
Can a new law explicitly permitting behavior that wasn’t previously prohibited really be said to be alleviating restrictions? Laws are inherently restrictive in the sense that things which aren’t prohibited by law, are permissible. So a law which codifies that something is permissible is useful for clarity, but it doesn’t really release citizens of restrictions.
- mattmaroon 4y ago
  Yes because things can be restricted due to legal precedent determined by a judge, rather than due to a law, but a law can redefine it to be less restrictive. Imagine as a hypothetical (I know next to nothing about AZ law) that AZ had a law that said cops could enforce a minimum distance from which you could record for safety reasons. Hypothetically, a court case could rule that a cop that wouldn’t let people record from under 25’ was following said law. There’s no law that specifies 25’ in this hypothetical, but now there’s a court precedent that effectively sets it at that. So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom. Also state laws can legalize something that was federally illegal, sort of. See marijuana legalization. (This is really technical and rests on the commerce clause and is debatable, but what’s not debatable is people can now open up a shop and sell weed without ending up in a federal prison whereas before they could not, so freedom has increased.)
  - thfuran 4y ago
    >So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom. A law, but not this law, which explicitly does not grant any right.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

> All laws are inherently restrictive. While the maxim "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" generally holds true for individuals (but not organisations), it is not true that all laws are restrictive. See for example the first amendement of the US constitution which is restrictive towards the legislature and sanctifies rights for individuals or from a more international point of view the first article of the Declaration of Human Rights which states that all men are born free and equal in dignity and rights.