3 ms·

>Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? Having read the reason

>Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? Having read the reasoning of overturning Roe (I assume that's what you are alluding to), no, I'm not concerned. First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. >They don't let you out of prison when the law used to justify your arrest is affirmed unconstitutional. Obstructing is usually the charge used. It's not a prison-length offense (> 1 year). But yes, it depends. If your lawyer brought up the constitutionality of the law (as they should have), you can get released, but it does take time unfortunately. >It doesn't put your teeth back in your head or undo the TBI you got during the arrest. It does not. Fortunately here have been more and more police convicted of criminal activity doing things like this, so I'm hopeful for the future. I'd like to also add that the proliferation of camera phones is probably the single most helpful thing it reigning in bad behavior. Police body cams as well. It makes misbehavior much more difficult to cover up and justify. Either way, you're arguing about police brutality, not the fact that journalists need to be 10-25 feet away from an incident to film. I think 10-25 feet is reasonable. I think 10 feet is more reasonable than 25.

AlexandrB 3y ago
> First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. I wonder what precedent links filming something to the 1st amendment. If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations. These have not been ruled unconstitutional even though it's a similar activity to filming the police.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. I linked this on an earlier reply, but I believe it answers your question. https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amendment-audits-is-filming-protected-by-the-first-amendment/ https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amend... >Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations. These have not been ruled unconstitutional even though it's a similar activity to filming the police. Police have tried using this as an exception but I believe it was shot down because it's in public. The fact that some of them disliked being filmed so much just bolsters the case that they need to be filed, IMO. >Most of us would be furious about being filmed on the job. We just don’t render deadly force. If you're in public, you're always being filmed. Look up at most light poles, there's cameras everywhere.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > fact that some of them disliked being filmed so much just bolsters the case that they need to be filed, IMO Most of us would be furious about being filmed on the job. We just don’t render deadly force.
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      For many service workers interacting with the public it's already a reality that they get filmed and posted on TikTok/Instagram - especially if an interaction goes wrong.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        True. But if you ask them about being filmed, I doubt they love it. Just saying we can’t conclude malfeasance from cops desiring secrecy.
        giraffe_lady 3y ago
        No for the police you should assume malfeasance by default and craft law & policy around that. They have demonstrated over and over that they consider discretionary violence their core role and oversight of it to be interference.
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Freedom of the press of course. Filming is critical to journalism. Recording in private is completely different.
- rawgabbit 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of police carrying out their duties in a public place
- Qwertious 3y ago
  >because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. Not easily - writing is clearly an expressive act, as is painting. This is true even if you don't publish your writing/painting. Photography is just as much an art as painting, with camera angle, framing, filters etc all being relevant to the final piece. Recording someone is filming, which is basically just extended photography.
rootusrootus 3y ago
> I think 10-25 feet is reasonable. I think 10 feet is more reasonable than 25. Sometimes I wonder how far people think 10 feet really is. That's like standing across a small bedroom from someone. If you're that close to a cop arresting someone, you're basically participating. 25 feet is more reasonable, but if things go pear shaped you're still close enough to get injured before you even realize something is wrong.

AlexandrB 3y ago

> First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. I wonder what precedent links filming something to the 1st amendment. If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations. These have not been ruled unconstitutional even though it's a similar activity to filming the police.

Clubber 3y ago
>If I wanted to undermine the ability to film police, this is where I would look - because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. I linked this on an earlier reply, but I believe it answers your question. https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amendment-audits-is-filming-protected-by-the-first-amendment/ https://canons.sog.unc.edu/2022/11/responding-to-first-amend... >Consider states with "2 party consent" laws for recording phone conversations. These have not been ruled unconstitutional even though it's a similar activity to filming the police. Police have tried using this as an exception but I believe it was shot down because it's in public. The fact that some of them disliked being filmed so much just bolsters the case that they need to be filed, IMO. >Most of us would be furious about being filmed on the job. We just don’t render deadly force. If you're in public, you're always being filmed. Look up at most light poles, there's cameras everywhere.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > fact that some of them disliked being filmed so much just bolsters the case that they need to be filed, IMO Most of us would be furious about being filmed on the job. We just don’t render deadly force.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    For many service workers interacting with the public it's already a reality that they get filmed and posted on TikTok/Instagram - especially if an interaction goes wrong.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      True. But if you ask them about being filmed, I doubt they love it. Just saying we can’t conclude malfeasance from cops desiring secrecy.
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        No for the police you should assume malfeasance by default and craft law & policy around that. They have demonstrated over and over that they consider discretionary violence their core role and oversight of it to be interference.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Freedom of the press of course. Filming is critical to journalism. Recording in private is completely different.
rawgabbit 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of police carrying out their duties in a public place
Qwertious 3y ago
>because recording something, it could be argued, is not an expressive act. Not easily - writing is clearly an expressive act, as is painting. This is true even if you don't publish your writing/painting. Photography is just as much an art as painting, with camera angle, framing, filters etc all being relevant to the final piece. Recording someone is filming, which is basically just extended photography.

rootusrootus 3y ago

> I think 10-25 feet is reasonable. I think 10 feet is more reasonable than 25. Sometimes I wonder how far people think 10 feet really is. That's like standing across a small bedroom from someone. If you're that close to a cop arresting someone, you're basically participating. 25 feet is more reasonable, but if things go pear shaped you're still close enough to get injured before you even realize something is wrong.