The de-liberalization of photography

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Nov 29, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    More evidence:
    CNN:

    Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    exists."
     
    RichA, Nov 29, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Nov 29, 1:15 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    > More evidence:
    > CNN:
    >
    > Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    > "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    > encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    > if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    > exists."


    And I thought the UK was bad, seems like some states are just as bad
    if not worse.
     
    Whisky-dave, Nov 29, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:15:29 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >More evidence:
    >CNN:
    >
    >Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >exists."


    The above is misleading. The states have not "made it illegal". They
    have arrested people and charged them with breaking laws (about
    wiretapping and eavesdropping) that have been in effect for quite some
    time. The courts have dismissed many cases based on arrests of this
    nature.

    It may be unacceptable to the public for the police to interpret the
    laws as they have, but that's no reason to provide misleading
    information.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 29, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    GMAN Guest

    In article <>, RichA <> wrote:
    >More evidence:
    >CNN:
    >
    >Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >exists."

    That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
     
    GMAN, Nov 29, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:29:34 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:15:29 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> More evidence:
    >>> CNN:
    >>>
    >>> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >>> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >>> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >>> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >>> exists."

    >>
    >> The above is misleading. The states have not "made it illegal". They
    >> have arrested people and charged them with breaking laws (about
    >> wiretapping and eavesdropping) that have been in effect for quite some
    >> time. The courts have dismissed many cases based on arrests of this
    >> nature.
    >>
    >> It may be unacceptable to the public for the police to interpret the
    >> laws as they have, but that's no reason to provide misleading
    >> information.

    >
    >http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/are-cameras-the-new-guns/#?cnn=yes


    That article states:
    ----
    The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing
    wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing
    law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland
    are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a
    recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to
    all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the
    camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also
    include an exception for recording in public places where “no
    expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice
    this exception is not being recognized.

    Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was
    arrested for such a recording. She explained, “[T]he statute has been
    misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and
    snap pictures and record if you want.” Legal scholar and professor
    Jonathan Turley agrees, “The police are basing this claim on a
    ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law —
    requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the
    area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense.”
    ----

    As I said, no new laws have been made.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 29, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"GMAN" <> wrote in message
    >news:2PQIo.427829$1.easynews.com...
    >> In article
    >> <>, RichA
    >> <> wrote:
    >>>More evidence:
    >>>CNN:
    >>>
    >>>Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >>>"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >>>encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >>>if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >>>exists."

    >> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.

    >
    >Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
    >

    Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
    Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
    reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
    that foots the legal bill.

    It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
    appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
    higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
    there's a need to go higher.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 29, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:59:32 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"GMAN" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:2PQIo.427829$1.easynews.com...
    >>>> In article
    >>>> <>,
    >>>> RichA
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>More evidence:
    >>>>>CNN:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >>>>>"illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >>>>>encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >>>>>if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >>>>>exists."
    >>>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
    >>>
    >>>Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
    >>>

    >> Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
    >> Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
    >> reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
    >> that foots the legal bill.

    >
    >I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
    >violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
    >other organization would already be putting an oar in.


    I don't think you understand the system. The Supreme Court does not
    rule on cases not brought before them. It doesn't make any difference
    how egregious the violation is. The court doesn't hear an appeal if
    the appeal is settled in a lower court or the case is dropped.

    >> It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
    >> appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
    >> higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
    >> there's a need to go higher.

    >



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 29, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:43:18 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> "tony cooper"<> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "GMAN"<> wrote in message
    >>>> news:2PQIo.427829$1.easynews.com...
    >>>>> In article
    >>>>> <>,
    >>>>> RichA
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>> More evidence:
    >>>>>> CNN:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >>>>>> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >>>>>> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >>>>>> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >>>>>> exists."
    >>>>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
    >>>>
    >>>> Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
    >>>>
    >>> Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
    >>> Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
    >>> reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
    >>> that foots the legal bill.

    >>
    >> I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
    >> violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
    >> other organization would already be putting an oar in.

    >
    >It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
    >to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
    >before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
    >heart or light of wallet.
    >
    >>>
    >>> It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
    >>> appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
    >>> higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
    >>> there's a need to go higher.

    >>
    >> Even so . . .

    >
    >Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
    >where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
    >banning.


    Or, as Paul posted, it will be brought to the attention of legislative
    bodies who can do something about it without there having to be a
    contested trial. Just the fact that enough constituents want something
    done would be enough.
     
    John A., Nov 29, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:25:56 -0800, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:59:32 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "tony cooper"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "GMAN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:2PQIo.427829$1.easynews.com...
    >>>>>> In article
    >>>>>> <>,
    >>>>>> RichA
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> More evidence:
    >>>>>>> CNN:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >>>>>>> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >>>>>>> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >>>>>>> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >>>>>>> exists."
    >>>>>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
    >>>> Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
    >>>> reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
    >>>> that foots the legal bill.
    >>>
    >>> I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
    >>> violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
    >>> other organization would already be putting an oar in.

    >>
    >> I don't think you understand the system. The Supreme Court does not
    >> rule on cases not brought before them. It doesn't make any difference
    >> how egregious the violation is. The court doesn't hear an appeal if
    >> the appeal is settled in a lower court or the case is dropped.

    >
    >from the link above:
    >http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/are-cameras-the-new-guns/#?cnn=yes
    >"Happily, even as the practice of arresting “shooters” expands, there
    >are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction
    >has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a
    >settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested “shooter,”
    >the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written
    >policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.


    I'm not sure what your point is, Paul. In this case the issue was
    resolved by settlement. Any appeal was dropped, so the case will not
    continue to move up the ladder towards a Supreme Court hearing.

    There are cases where it is hoped that an appeal will be denied
    because that allows the case to move up the ladder. However, a
    reversal by any higher court usually stops a practice.


    >As journalist Radley Balko declares, “State legislatures should consider
    >passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law
    >enforcement officials.”
    >
    >
    >>>> It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
    >>>> appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
    >>>> higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
    >>>> there's a need to go higher.
    >>>

    >>
    >>


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 29, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:52:14 -0500, John A. <>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:43:18 -0500, Alan Browne
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "tony cooper"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "GMAN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:2PQIo.427829$1.easynews.com...
    >>>>>> In article
    >>>>>> <>,
    >>>>>> RichA
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> More evidence:
    >>>>>>> CNN:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >>>>>>> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >>>>>>> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >>>>>>> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >>>>>>> exists."
    >>>>>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
    >>>> Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
    >>>> reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
    >>>> that foots the legal bill.
    >>>
    >>> I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
    >>> violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
    >>> other organization would already be putting an oar in.

    >>
    >>It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
    >>to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
    >>before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
    >>heart or light of wallet.
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
    >>>> appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
    >>>> higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
    >>>> there's a need to go higher.
    >>>
    >>> Even so . . .

    >>
    >>Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
    >>where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
    >>banning.

    >
    >Or, as Paul posted, it will be brought to the attention of legislative
    >bodies who can do something about it without there having to be a
    >contested trial. Just the fact that enough constituents want something
    >done would be enough.


    I want to live in your state.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 29, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:41:55 -0500, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:52:14 -0500, John A. <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:43:18 -0500, Alan Browne
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>> "tony cooper"<> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "GMAN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:2PQIo.427829$1.easynews.com...
    >>>>>>> In article
    >>>>>>> <>,
    >>>>>>> RichA
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> More evidence:
    >>>>>>>> CNN:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >>>>>>>> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >>>>>>>> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >>>>>>>> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >>>>>>>> exists."
    >>>>>>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
    >>>>> Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
    >>>>> reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
    >>>>> that foots the legal bill.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
    >>>> violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
    >>>> other organization would already be putting an oar in.
    >>>
    >>>It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
    >>>to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
    >>>before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
    >>>heart or light of wallet.
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
    >>>>> appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
    >>>>> higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
    >>>>> there's a need to go higher.
    >>>>
    >>>> Even so . . .
    >>>
    >>>Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
    >>>where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
    >>>banning.

    >>
    >>Or, as Paul posted, it will be brought to the attention of legislative
    >>bodies who can do something about it without there having to be a
    >>contested trial. Just the fact that enough constituents want something
    >>done would be enough.

    >
    >I want to live in your state.


    The politicians in your state don't pander to voters? Must be some
    heavy-duty lobbyists down there.
     
    John A., Nov 29, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    shiva das Guest

    In article <>,
    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
    > > "tony cooper"<> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>
    > >>> "GMAN"<> wrote in message
    > >>> news:2PQIo.427829$1.easynews.com...
    > >>>> In article
    > >>>> <>,
    > >>>> RichA
    > >>>> <> wrote:
    > >>>>> More evidence:
    > >>>>> CNN:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    > >>>>> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    > >>>>> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    > >>>>> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    > >>>>> exists."
    > >>>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
    > >>>
    > >>> Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
    > >>>
    > >> Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
    > >> Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
    > >> reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
    > >> that foots the legal bill.

    > >
    > > I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
    > > violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
    > > other organization would already be putting an oar in.

    >
    > It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
    > to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
    > before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
    > heart or light of wallet.
    >
    > >>
    > >> It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
    > >> appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
    > >> higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
    > >> there's a need to go higher.

    > >
    > > Even so . . .

    >
    > Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
    > where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
    > banning.


    Or it could percolate up to the Supreme Court and they could decide that
    the ban(s) are in fact constitutional. Just because a case gets appealed
    up to the SC doesn't mean their final* decision will go the "correct"
    way.


    *Final but for a Constitutional amendment, which is the only way for
    anyone other than the Supreme Court to reverse a SC decision.
     
    shiva das, Nov 29, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:39:29 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 10-11-29 11:29 , Paul Furman wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/are-cameras-the-new-guns/#?cnn=yes

    >
    >Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    >
    >The police often make a video recording of arrests to both aid in
    >prosecution and to show they have done nothing wrong or illegal.
    >
    >To disallow the public the same procedure is a double-standard.
    >
    >Per the article, it's based on laws in those states that require all
    >party agreement to recordings. But does that apply in public? Does it
    >apply to the police who are employees of the public?
    >
    >Those states trying to prevent photography or filming are using a law
    >designed for one purpose to suppress public surveillance of the police.
    >
    >Eventually someone will challenge the law up to the SC and that will
    >decide the limit of such "law".


    It doesn't have to go to the (federal) Supreme Court to stop this
    application of the laws. A ruling in any of the higher courts will
    set precedence.

    >IMO, absolutely no law officer should expect that his actions in public
    >may not be recorded by any interested bystander - or the accused.


    That's not as simple an issue as you might think. The footage that
    public makes available on YouTube or to the local television station
    can be edited or can show only a short burst of the events. A clip
    showing officers roughly handling a person may not show the minutes
    leading up to that point where the person is high on meth and
    violently resisting.

    While the public's "the right to film" may be incontestable, the
    officers should have the right to expect that film to show the full
    incident and not just snatches of the incident that portray the
    incident not as it was.

    Shirley Sherrod can tell you how editing can dramatically change what
    actually happened into what didn't happen.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 30, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 11/29/2010 8:15 AM, RichA wrote:
    > More evidence:
    > CNN:
    >
    > Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    > "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    > encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    > if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    > exists."


    Don't insult our intelligence by citing some vague CNN report. Give me
    the exact statute, with a clickable reference. Then we can comment.

    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Nov 30, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 29, 9:04 am, Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    > On Nov 29, 1:15 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > > More evidence:
    > > CNN:

    >
    > > Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    > > "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    > > encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    > > if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    > > exists."

    >
    > And I thought the UK was bad, seems like some states are just as bad
    > if not worse.


    Blue states as well. Take note.
     
    RichA, Nov 30, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 11/29/2010 10:21 AM, John A. wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:15:29 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> More evidence:
    >> CNN:
    >>
    >> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >> exists."

    >
    > I imagine those laws will be contested at some point.


    If they even say what he says they say. They may, or may not. Assuming
    they do exist, there may be regulations describing how they are intended
    to be enforced.

    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Nov 30, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 11/29/2010 10:37 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 05:15:29 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> More evidence:
    >> CNN:
    >>
    >> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >> exists."

    >
    > The above is misleading. The states have not "made it illegal". They
    > have arrested people and charged them with breaking laws (about
    > wiretapping and eavesdropping) that have been in effect for quite some
    > time. The courts have dismissed many cases based on arrests of this
    > nature.
    >
    > It may be unacceptable to the public for the police to interpret the
    > laws as they have, but that's no reason to provide misleading
    > information.
    >
    >

    Aw Tony, you're ruining my fun. I was just getting started with him.

    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Nov 30, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 11/29/2010 7:00 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:39:29 -0500, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 10-11-29 11:29 , Paul Furman wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/are-cameras-the-new-guns/#?cnn=yes

    >>
    >> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    >>
    >> The police often make a video recording of arrests to both aid in
    >> prosecution and to show they have done nothing wrong or illegal.
    >>
    >> To disallow the public the same procedure is a double-standard.
    >>
    >> Per the article, it's based on laws in those states that require all
    >> party agreement to recordings. But does that apply in public? Does it
    >> apply to the police who are employees of the public?
    >>
    >> Those states trying to prevent photography or filming are using a law
    >> designed for one purpose to suppress public surveillance of the police.
    >>
    >> Eventually someone will challenge the law up to the SC and that will
    >> decide the limit of such "law".

    >
    > It doesn't have to go to the (federal) Supreme Court to stop this
    > application of the laws. A ruling in any of the higher courts will
    > set precedence.
    >


    But only in that district where that court sits. e.g. we may have an
    Appellate division ruling in one division and a contrary ruling, on the
    same set of facts, in another division.

    Similar incidents happen in the Federal System. There are even Tax Laws
    that are interpreted differently by the US Tax Court in California, than
    New York.


    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Nov 30, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:44:02 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 10-11-29 19:00 , tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:39:29 -0500, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 10-11-29 11:29 , Paul Furman wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/are-cameras-the-new-guns/#?cnn=yes
    >>>
    >>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    >>>
    >>> The police often make a video recording of arrests to both aid in
    >>> prosecution and to show they have done nothing wrong or illegal.
    >>>
    >>> To disallow the public the same procedure is a double-standard.
    >>>
    >>> Per the article, it's based on laws in those states that require all
    >>> party agreement to recordings. But does that apply in public? Does it
    >>> apply to the police who are employees of the public?
    >>>
    >>> Those states trying to prevent photography or filming are using a law
    >>> designed for one purpose to suppress public surveillance of the police.
    >>>
    >>> Eventually someone will challenge the law up to the SC and that will
    >>> decide the limit of such "law".

    >>
    >> It doesn't have to go to the (federal) Supreme Court to stop this
    >> application of the laws. A ruling in any of the higher courts will
    >> set precedence.

    >
    >I didn't say otherwise - although I short circuited the appeal and
    >circuit courts (see my other post).
    >
    >>
    >>> IMO, absolutely no law officer should expect that his actions in public
    >>> may not be recorded by any interested bystander - or the accused.

    >>
    >> That's not as simple an issue as you might think. The footage that
    >> public makes available on YouTube or to the local television station
    >> can be edited or can show only a short burst of the events. A clip
    >> showing officers roughly handling a person may not show the minutes
    >> leading up to that point where the person is high on meth and
    >> violently resisting.
    >>
    >> While the public's "the right to film" may be incontestable, the
    >> officers should have the right to expect that film to show the full
    >> incident and not just snatches of the incident that portray the
    >> incident not as it was.

    >
    >As I said earlier the police often film their own footage of events for
    >evidence and posterior padding.


    >(And you can be sure the prosecution is
    >not above editing for effect - a good lawyer will demand to see the
    >entire film, of course).


    Down here, when video is used, the filming is from dashboard cameras
    in patrol vehicles. The entire incident is filmed. The film shows
    elapsed time, so cutting out and splicing back would be very apparent.

    >I agree with the notion of full disclosure of the film (since a public
    >filming would, in effect, be prosecution of the police).
    >
    >A fly in the ointment being that JQPublic filming might actually only
    >record a short segment of the whole and inadvertently (or deliberately)
    >fail to provide exculpating evidence for the police.
    >
    >> Shirley Sherrod can tell you how editing can dramatically change what
    >> actually happened into what didn't happen.

    >
    >Surely. However, it should be pointed out that the Sherrod incident was
    >politically driven by a Republican wing nut and not part of a criminal
    >investigation or civil complaint against the police.


    Wing nuts come in all flavors. Any group with an axe to grind could
    pull a similar trick, including a liberal group. I don't think the
    Republicans have a lock on dishonesty.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Nov 30, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 11/29/2010 6:41 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:52:14 -0500, John A.<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:43:18 -0500, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 10-11-29 15:59 , Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>> "tony cooper"<> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:12:35 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "GMAN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:2PQIo.427829$1.easynews.com...
    >>>>>>> In article
    >>>>>>> <>,
    >>>>>>> RichA
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> More evidence:
    >>>>>>>> CNN:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it
    >>>>>>>> "illegal to record (video) an on-duty police officer even if the
    >>>>>>>> encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even
    >>>>>>>> if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy
    >>>>>>>> exists."
    >>>>>>> That sounds like a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Exactly. Sort of surprising it isn't already happening.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Why? It's exceedingly expensive to pursue an appeal up to the Supreme
    >>>>> Court. An individual really can't afford to. Usually, a case that
    >>>>> reaches the Supreme Court is backed by some organization (ie: ACLU)
    >>>>> that foots the legal bill.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm sure you're right. But this seems like a sufficiently egregrious
    >>>> violation of constitutional rights that I should think the ACLU or some
    >>>> other organization would already be putting an oar in.
    >>>
    >>> It has to be defended (upheld) at appeal then circuit. Then someone has
    >>> to apply to the SC (who determine if they could be bothered with it)
    >>> before it is heard. As Tony points out, it is not for the faint of
    >>> heart or light of wallet.
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's not particularly surprising that no one has been found guilty and
    >>>>> appealed the verdict, been turned down on appeal, and appealed it to a
    >>>>> higher court. The verdicts, when appealed, could be reversed before
    >>>>> there's a need to go higher.
    >>>>
    >>>> Even so . . .
    >>>
    >>> Eventually it will be of enough import to float up to Circuit or SC
    >>> where it may finally be returned with a constitutionally based ban on
    >>> banning.

    >>
    >> Or, as Paul posted, it will be brought to the attention of legislative
    >> bodies who can do something about it without there having to be a
    >> contested trial. Just the fact that enough constituents want something
    >> done would be enough.

    >
    > I want to live in your state.
    >
    >

    At one time I seriously considered living n yours, but decided I would
    be happier as a visitor.


    --
    Peter
    Who among us is living in a state of bliss
     
    peter, Nov 30, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    868
    Silverstrand
    Nov 18, 2005
  2. SgtMinor

    Digital Photography

    SgtMinor, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    777
    Scraggy
    Jul 19, 2005
  3. Patzt
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    341
    Patzt
    Aug 14, 2005
  4. PixelPix
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    816
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    460
Loading...

Share This Page