>I don't see why that should ever change based on if you are holding a camera or not. It should not, but I believe that holding a camera is a strong signal tha

>I don't see why that should ever change based on if you are holding a camera or not. It should not, but I believe that holding a camera is a strong signal that a person is operating as a journalist. It could be argued that a person watching an incident can easily be operating in the same capacity. I was wrong, the SCOTUS hasn't directly addressed filming of police, but that seems like it never got a chance to make it there because it's been affirmed in many circuit courts. They have alluded several times on how they feel about filming government officials (strongly support), but no case has directly made it in regards to explicitly filming police. 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... To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside of public buildings generally. However, the Supreme Court has recognized a “paramount public interest in a free flow of information to the people concerning public officials.” Moreover, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” Filming public officials engaged in public duties may fall within this broadly defined “newsgathering” or “information gathering” right that courts have recognized in prior First Amendment cases. >Except, you know, in the Supreme Court. Yes, that is a strange exception.