10 ms·

Court strikes down limits on filming of police in Arizona

227 points by rootw0rm 3y ago

obblekk 3y ago
Sometimes I’m reminded how remarkable it is that people managed to set up a system of governance in which the rulers can’t do anything they want. An imperfect system, but still worth protecting as it improves.
- kennyloginz 3y ago
  Took me a minute to parse what you meant, but I agree, it’s nice to see a reminder every now and then that this system can work!
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > An imperfect system, but still worth protecting as it improves. It's not improving though. Quite the opposite. For the past two decades, individual rights in Western democracies have consistently been eroded, under both right- and left-wing governments. I cannot think of a single major change in any major Western country since the start of the century that I would call an improvement of individual rights.
  - gameman144 3y ago
    > I cannot think of a single major change in any major Western country since the start of the century that I would call an improvement of individual rights. Would gay marriage rights not fall under an improvement of individual rights here? If not, why?
    - p-e-w 3y ago
      See above.
      - gameman144 3y ago
        Am I missing something in your original comment? I don't see any comment regarding gay marriage anywhere up the tree.
        p-e-w 3y ago
        I meant see my reply to the sibling comment of your comment, which raises the same point. Group rights and individual rights are not the same thing.
        HelloMcFly 3y ago
        I truly don't see the difference in this case. You - as an individual - now have the right to legally marry whomever you choose provided they have the legal right to consent (e.g., old enough, of sound mind, etc.). You may not have any desire or need to exercise that right, but it's still yours all the same.
  - vasco 3y ago
    Since the start of the century, many western democracies added freedom for marrying people of the same sex as you. Abortion laws also got more progressive in several countries in the last 20 years. There's been an erosion of privacy and other things but there's some areas with extra civil liberties.
    - p-e-w 3y ago
      Both of those are examples of group rights, not individual rights. That is, rights have been expanded for subsets of the population, not for everyone. That's a very important distinction to make, though I grant you that pretending this distinction doesn't exist has been the MO of politics and media for a while now.
      - t0bia_s 3y ago
        In democracy, where majority decide about minorities, there is naturally place for eroding limits for individuals. At least we can discuss about it. But ability to make diolague shrinks due to overconsumption of naratives full of fear. That bothers me quite a bit. We pretend to solving problems by creating ridiculous ammount of regulations and laws instead of removing those non functional.
        stareatgoats 3y ago
        > ability to make diolague shrinks due to overconsumption of naratives full of fear I think you might refer to how political discourse in western democracies increasingly seems not appeal to reason and common ground, but to "feelings" including fear, but also disgust, love of tribe and similar. It seems to be that way but I'm not sure it wasn't always. Maybe people who want rational discourse about policy should seek forums that does just that, and not look to be informed by campaign slogans and the mudwrestling that goes on in social media. And maybe that's how it always was. I'm not sure.
        t0bia_s 3y ago
        Rising tribalism is very interesting phenomena. I guess it's driven by media rethoric that dictate feelings and it's full of sensations, because apparently it makes more money. What is difference than before is scale. So many people never consumed virtual information before. It makes perfect ground for one, centralised control over masses.
  - piva00 3y ago
    I consider GDPR in the EU (and similar initiatives in other jurisdictions) to be an improvement of individuals' rights. I agree with the general sentiment though, very little else (if anything) has progressed.
    - p-e-w 3y ago
      The GDPR is merely a (weak) response to the overwhelming erosion of individual privacy that has been taking place during the past 20 years. In practice, individual privacy has been diminished to a degree that calling the GDPR an improvement is almost cynical. The GDPR only exists because the right to privacy means almost nothing in today's world. Not to mention that the GDPR is so routinely violated that most "rights" it appears to grant are worthless in reality.
      - piva00 3y ago
        Yes, I agree with you, at the same time it's something of an improvement against the status quo pre-GDPR. Saying it's ineffective does not mean it didn't change the reality of individual rights being eroded on the data privacy sphere... I've worked in multiple projects to comply with GDPR, there is a much higher degree of care with PII after GDPR than before, so it is a step in the right direction. I'm not the type to wait for a perfect solution to arrive, GDPR has made changes in real life, we need to keep pushing what it has brought forth instead of just complaining it's ineffective, it has value on its own and more can be done.
searealist 3y ago
> The law would have made it illegal to knowingly film police officers 8 feet (2.5 meters) or closer if the officer tells the person to stop. This seems entirely reasonable. I'm not sure what you'd capture closer than 8 feet that you would not from farther away.
- dagenix 3y ago
  What if you are filming and standing still and then the police officer walks toward you?
  - searealist 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Police already play copyright music in order to kill livestreams of them. These feel like excuses to prevent checks against legalized force. https://www.techdirt.com/2021/07/06/law-enforcement-officer-openly-admits-hes-playing-copyrighted-music-to-prevent-citizens-recording-being-uploaded-to-youtube/ https://www.techdirt.com/2021/07/06/law-enforcement-officer-... https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/18/cops-are-still-playing-copyrighted-music-to-thwart-citizens-recording-their-actions/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/18/cops-are-still-playing-c...
      - searealist 3y ago
        [flagged]
        toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Not all opinions are equal. > The law prohibits or chills a substantial amount of First Amendment protected activity and is unnecessary to prevent interference with police officers given other Arizona laws in effect,” [Federal Judge] Tuchi ruled. The original Republican sponsor of the measure has been unable to find someone to defend it, as the article notes. > Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh, who sponsored the measure, has said he was unable to find an outside group to defend the legislation.
nimbius 3y ago
A well known risk of democracy is populist nonsense laws that appeal to a vocal minority or entrenched voting block. The legislator who pushed this turd of a law knew what he was doing and the consequences were moot. Getting re elected was more important. The modern Republican party of small government and low taxes is long gone. in its stead is basically a zombie that shambles from culture war to culture war in a desperate bid to remain relevant to anyone who still thinks cutting a billionaires taxes makes any sense in 2023. It advances dead cat legislation and reactionary edicts against the very first amendment it insists it champions.
- fredsmith219 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mindslight 3y ago
    The bulk of the Party doesn't even seem to actually care about the 2nd amendment - see the outpouring of support for the police summarily executing individuals exercising their right to bear arms. The topic has become something more like a performative security blanket of imagining some heroic last stand as a simulation of fighting tyranny.
  - nxx788 3y ago
    And there's a second amendment contingent on the left now too. Organizations like the socialist rifle association (SRA), Pink Pistols, John Brown Gun Club (JBGC) and several others. It's far from the majority position left of center, but there's plenty of folks who recognize the disproportionate impact gun laws have on minorities, and the difference in arms between an increasingly violent right and the minority groups in America.
- givemeethekeys 3y ago
  Always has been a part of all parties in every country and always will be.
- 4RealFreedom 3y ago
  Where have you ever seen a mainstream republican candidate for small government? Reagan is the only one in my lifetime and even that is questionable. Both parties have always been about using the power of government for their own purposes. This is why the federal government never gets smaller. It's unfortunate because both parties are heavy handed in their pursuit of power. It's unavoidable because people always want action even to the determent of reason. This is not republican or democrat - this is human nature.
egberts1 3y ago
The problem is in the law of “how close you can film” that SCOTUS rules against is already a subset of a much better law such as “shall not obstruct police work” that is already on 34 states’ (and DC) law book. Arizona already has such a broad law that SCOTUS have repeatedly ruled in favor: AZ ST § 13-2402. Obstructing governmental operations A. A person commits obstructing governmental operations if, by using or threatening to use violence or physical force, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs or hinders: 1. The performance of a governmental function by a public servant acting under color of his official authority; or 2. The enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer acting under color of his official authority. B. This section does not apply to the obstruction, impairment or hinderance of the making of an arrest. C. Obstructing governmental operations is a class 1 misdemeanor.
noduerme 3y ago
Still odd to me that the party that supports "freedom" - specifically, 2A rights, which I also support - has this cop fetish. Law enforcement is a crucial regulator against anarchy and crime, so that society can function more smoothly. But it should never, ever be allowed to have its own agenda or lobby for restrictions on free citizens' rights. The fact that the pro-2A PARTY in this country doesn't see that, and instead prefers to drop to their knees for cops, is deeply disturbing and disappointing. They just worship the uniform. That's kinda the difference between a conservative and a fascist (or a liberal and a communist). Fuck authority that we appointed giving themselves extra self-appointed permissions. I think I can say this, whether I'm right wing or left wing, and intelligent people will agree.
- zapataband1 3y ago
  Cops in Chicago are currently investigating themselves for rape of immigrant minors housed in their facilities. Absolutely disgusting that people continue to cheer our broken police force, especially after Ulvalde.
- function_seven 3y ago
  I’ve lost count how many times I’ve seen both the Gadsden flag and the thin blue line flag flying on the same house/truck/boat/whatever. Um, pick one, yeah?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    What you read into The Thin Blue Line flag depends heavily on where you land on the political Spectrum. Gadsden was a general in the Continental Army, so it's not like they were a complete anarchist. Unless someone's a complete anarchist, they understand that you need the rule of law and order to protect the civil liberties they hold dear. The type of person that has a thin blue line sticker probably does not view the police as the primary threat to their civil liberties
  - noduerme 3y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is. I consider them both anti-American. Although my level of disgust is inherently higher with anything resembling and corrupting the American flag. I'm not a fan of flags anyway and I look down on people who care about them. If you think they sum up a political viewpoint, you're wrong, and it's still a sad commentary on the superficial nature of the debate we've been reduced to. [edit] it took me three reads of your comment to realize you were basically backing what I was saying. I'm an idiot, and I'm drunk at the moment. But yeah.
legitster 3y ago
> Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh, who sponsored the measure, has said he was unable to find an outside group to defend the legislation. > Prominent law enforcement officials refused to defend the law, including former Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich and both the prosecutor and sheriff’s office in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix. Credit where it's due, even the police themselves wanted nothing to do with this awful bill. And studies have shown that video evidence overwhelmingly exonerates police more often than it implicates them. Transparency is a win for everyone.
- magicalist 3y ago
  > And studies have shown that video evidence overwhelmingly exonerates police more often than it implicates them Which studies?
- mulmen 3y ago
  > And studies have shown that video evidence overwhelmingly exonerates police more often than it implicates them. In a world where police have the ability to disable their cameras is this surprising?
- ultrarunner 3y ago
  Kavanagh is an ex cop. I think they just recognized the bill as indefensible.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
arseniuss 3y ago
From an European perspective this looks like something happening in a third-world country. Anything can be bought and keeping your rights are based on luck. I wish I'd never visit US.
greatfilter251 3y ago
This right is still one which exists on paper only. All a cop has to do is mistake your cell phone for a gun and murder you, which they have shown they have no hesitation to do. Phone optional.

227 points by rootw0rm 3y ago

Sometimes I’m reminded how remarkable it is that people managed to set up a system of governance in which the rulers can’t do anything they want. An imperfect system, but still worth protecting as it improves.

kennyloginz 3y ago
Took me a minute to parse what you meant, but I agree, it’s nice to see a reminder every now and then that this system can work!
p-e-w 3y ago
> An imperfect system, but still worth protecting as it improves. It's not improving though. Quite the opposite. For the past two decades, individual rights in Western democracies have consistently been eroded, under both right- and left-wing governments. I cannot think of a single major change in any major Western country since the start of the century that I would call an improvement of individual rights.
- gameman144 3y ago
  > I cannot think of a single major change in any major Western country since the start of the century that I would call an improvement of individual rights. Would gay marriage rights not fall under an improvement of individual rights here? If not, why?
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    See above.
    - gameman144 3y ago
      Am I missing something in your original comment? I don't see any comment regarding gay marriage anywhere up the tree.
      - p-e-w 3y ago
        I meant see my reply to the sibling comment of your comment, which raises the same point. Group rights and individual rights are not the same thing.
        HelloMcFly 3y ago
        I truly don't see the difference in this case. You - as an individual - now have the right to legally marry whomever you choose provided they have the legal right to consent (e.g., old enough, of sound mind, etc.). You may not have any desire or need to exercise that right, but it's still yours all the same.
- vasco 3y ago
  Since the start of the century, many western democracies added freedom for marrying people of the same sex as you. Abortion laws also got more progressive in several countries in the last 20 years. There's been an erosion of privacy and other things but there's some areas with extra civil liberties.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    Both of those are examples of group rights, not individual rights. That is, rights have been expanded for subsets of the population, not for everyone. That's a very important distinction to make, though I grant you that pretending this distinction doesn't exist has been the MO of politics and media for a while now.
    - t0bia_s 3y ago
      In democracy, where majority decide about minorities, there is naturally place for eroding limits for individuals. At least we can discuss about it. But ability to make diolague shrinks due to overconsumption of naratives full of fear. That bothers me quite a bit. We pretend to solving problems by creating ridiculous ammount of regulations and laws instead of removing those non functional.
      - stareatgoats 3y ago
        > ability to make diolague shrinks due to overconsumption of naratives full of fear I think you might refer to how political discourse in western democracies increasingly seems not appeal to reason and common ground, but to "feelings" including fear, but also disgust, love of tribe and similar. It seems to be that way but I'm not sure it wasn't always. Maybe people who want rational discourse about policy should seek forums that does just that, and not look to be informed by campaign slogans and the mudwrestling that goes on in social media. And maybe that's how it always was. I'm not sure.
        t0bia_s 3y ago
        Rising tribalism is very interesting phenomena. I guess it's driven by media rethoric that dictate feelings and it's full of sensations, because apparently it makes more money. What is difference than before is scale. So many people never consumed virtual information before. It makes perfect ground for one, centralised control over masses.
- piva00 3y ago
  I consider GDPR in the EU (and similar initiatives in other jurisdictions) to be an improvement of individuals' rights. I agree with the general sentiment though, very little else (if anything) has progressed.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    The GDPR is merely a (weak) response to the overwhelming erosion of individual privacy that has been taking place during the past 20 years. In practice, individual privacy has been diminished to a degree that calling the GDPR an improvement is almost cynical. The GDPR only exists because the right to privacy means almost nothing in today's world. Not to mention that the GDPR is so routinely violated that most "rights" it appears to grant are worthless in reality.
    - piva00 3y ago
      Yes, I agree with you, at the same time it's something of an improvement against the status quo pre-GDPR. Saying it's ineffective does not mean it didn't change the reality of individual rights being eroded on the data privacy sphere... I've worked in multiple projects to comply with GDPR, there is a much higher degree of care with PII after GDPR than before, so it is a step in the right direction. I'm not the type to wait for a perfect solution to arrive, GDPR has made changes in real life, we need to keep pushing what it has brought forth instead of just complaining it's ineffective, it has value on its own and more can be done.

searealist 3y ago

> The law would have made it illegal to knowingly film police officers 8 feet (2.5 meters) or closer if the officer tells the person to stop. This seems entirely reasonable. I'm not sure what you'd capture closer than 8 feet that you would not from farther away.

dagenix 3y ago
What if you are filming and standing still and then the police officer walks toward you?
- searealist 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Police already play copyright music in order to kill livestreams of them. These feel like excuses to prevent checks against legalized force. https://www.techdirt.com/2021/07/06/law-enforcement-officer-openly-admits-hes-playing-copyrighted-music-to-prevent-citizens-recording-being-uploaded-to-youtube/ https://www.techdirt.com/2021/07/06/law-enforcement-officer-... https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/18/cops-are-still-playing-copyrighted-music-to-thwart-citizens-recording-their-actions/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/18/cops-are-still-playing-c...
    - searealist 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Not all opinions are equal. > The law prohibits or chills a substantial amount of First Amendment protected activity and is unnecessary to prevent interference with police officers given other Arizona laws in effect,” [Federal Judge] Tuchi ruled. The original Republican sponsor of the measure has been unable to find someone to defend it, as the article notes. > Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh, who sponsored the measure, has said he was unable to find an outside group to defend the legislation.

nimbius 3y ago

A well known risk of democracy is populist nonsense laws that appeal to a vocal minority or entrenched voting block. The legislator who pushed this turd of a law knew what he was doing and the consequences were moot. Getting re elected was more important. The modern Republican party of small government and low taxes is long gone. in its stead is basically a zombie that shambles from culture war to culture war in a desperate bid to remain relevant to anyone who still thinks cutting a billionaires taxes makes any sense in 2023. It advances dead cat legislation and reactionary edicts against the very first amendment it insists it champions.

fredsmith219 3y ago
[flagged]
- mindslight 3y ago
  The bulk of the Party doesn't even seem to actually care about the 2nd amendment - see the outpouring of support for the police summarily executing individuals exercising their right to bear arms. The topic has become something more like a performative security blanket of imagining some heroic last stand as a simulation of fighting tyranny.
- nxx788 3y ago
  And there's a second amendment contingent on the left now too. Organizations like the socialist rifle association (SRA), Pink Pistols, John Brown Gun Club (JBGC) and several others. It's far from the majority position left of center, but there's plenty of folks who recognize the disproportionate impact gun laws have on minorities, and the difference in arms between an increasingly violent right and the minority groups in America.
givemeethekeys 3y ago
Always has been a part of all parties in every country and always will be.
4RealFreedom 3y ago
Where have you ever seen a mainstream republican candidate for small government? Reagan is the only one in my lifetime and even that is questionable. Both parties have always been about using the power of government for their own purposes. This is why the federal government never gets smaller. It's unfortunate because both parties are heavy handed in their pursuit of power. It's unavoidable because people always want action even to the determent of reason. This is not republican or democrat - this is human nature.

egberts1 3y ago

The problem is in the law of “how close you can film” that SCOTUS rules against is already a subset of a much better law such as “shall not obstruct police work” that is already on 34 states’ (and DC) law book. Arizona already has such a broad law that SCOTUS have repeatedly ruled in favor: AZ ST § 13-2402. Obstructing governmental operations A. A person commits obstructing governmental operations if, by using or threatening to use violence or physical force, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs or hinders: 1. The performance of a governmental function by a public servant acting under color of his official authority; or 2. The enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer acting under color of his official authority. B. This section does not apply to the obstruction, impairment or hinderance of the making of an arrest. C. Obstructing governmental operations is a class 1 misdemeanor.

noduerme 3y ago

Still odd to me that the party that supports "freedom" - specifically, 2A rights, which I also support - has this cop fetish. Law enforcement is a crucial regulator against anarchy and crime, so that society can function more smoothly. But it should never, ever be allowed to have its own agenda or lobby for restrictions on free citizens' rights. The fact that the pro-2A PARTY in this country doesn't see that, and instead prefers to drop to their knees for cops, is deeply disturbing and disappointing. They just worship the uniform. That's kinda the difference between a conservative and a fascist (or a liberal and a communist). Fuck authority that we appointed giving themselves extra self-appointed permissions. I think I can say this, whether I'm right wing or left wing, and intelligent people will agree.

zapataband1 3y ago
Cops in Chicago are currently investigating themselves for rape of immigrant minors housed in their facilities. Absolutely disgusting that people continue to cheer our broken police force, especially after Ulvalde.
function_seven 3y ago
I’ve lost count how many times I’ve seen both the Gadsden flag and the thin blue line flag flying on the same house/truck/boat/whatever. Um, pick one, yeah?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  What you read into The Thin Blue Line flag depends heavily on where you land on the political Spectrum. Gadsden was a general in the Continental Army, so it's not like they were a complete anarchist. Unless someone's a complete anarchist, they understand that you need the rule of law and order to protect the civil liberties they hold dear. The type of person that has a thin blue line sticker probably does not view the police as the primary threat to their civil liberties
- noduerme 3y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. I consider them both anti-American. Although my level of disgust is inherently higher with anything resembling and corrupting the American flag. I'm not a fan of flags anyway and I look down on people who care about them. If you think they sum up a political viewpoint, you're wrong, and it's still a sad commentary on the superficial nature of the debate we've been reduced to. [edit] it took me three reads of your comment to realize you were basically backing what I was saying. I'm an idiot, and I'm drunk at the moment. But yeah.

legitster 3y ago

> Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh, who sponsored the measure, has said he was unable to find an outside group to defend the legislation. > Prominent law enforcement officials refused to defend the law, including former Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich and both the prosecutor and sheriff’s office in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix. Credit where it's due, even the police themselves wanted nothing to do with this awful bill. And studies have shown that video evidence overwhelmingly exonerates police more often than it implicates them. Transparency is a win for everyone.

magicalist 3y ago
> And studies have shown that video evidence overwhelmingly exonerates police more often than it implicates them Which studies?
mulmen 3y ago
> And studies have shown that video evidence overwhelmingly exonerates police more often than it implicates them. In a world where police have the ability to disable their cameras is this surprising?
ultrarunner 3y ago
Kavanagh is an ex cop. I think they just recognized the bill as indefensible.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

arseniuss 3y ago

From an European perspective this looks like something happening in a third-world country. Anything can be bought and keeping your rights are based on luck. I wish I'd never visit US.

greatfilter251 3y ago

This right is still one which exists on paper only. All a cop has to do is mistake your cell phone for a gun and murder you, which they have shown they have no hesitation to do. Phone optional.