4 ms·

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 uph

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.

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.