A few years ago I would have said there was no way this law would stand up in court, but with the wave of extremely conservative judges that Trump appointed...who knows. My biggest problem with...
But many people, including First Amendment experts, continued to oppose the bill, stating it was unconstitutional at its core, lacked specificity and granted police too much discretion. Various news organizations, including Gannett, the company that owns The Arizona Republic, also signed letters from the National Press Photographers Association opposing the bill.
A few years ago I would have said there was no way this law would stand up in court, but with the wave of extremely conservative judges that Trump appointed...who knows.
My biggest problem with the law, besides the obvious unconstitutionality of it, is that it can easily be used to cover up crimes. It goes beyond the obvious of police using it to stop people filming them from breaking the law. Politicians don't want to be recorded doing something? Just make sure they have a police escort and no one can film whatever they are doing.
I'm usually not a fan of the phrase, "you shouldn't worry about your privacy if you have nothing to hide," but I think it's extremely apt here. Why should the cops be afraid of being filmed if they are doing their job and not abusing their powers?
More specifically, cops are theoretically public servants upholding their public duty, and thus we all as the public have a relevant interest in them performing their duties appropriately. There...
More specifically, cops are theoretically public servants upholding their public duty, and thus we all as the public have a relevant interest in them performing their duties appropriately. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy for cops on duty.
Why try to make police accountable when you can save face by pretending nothing shady is happening? From the wording of the law it sounds like you're not allowed to record an officer within 8ft...
Why try to make police accountable when you can save face by pretending nothing shady is happening?
From the wording of the law it sounds like you're not allowed to record an officer within 8ft and if an officer approaches you to within 8ft they can now legally order you to stop recording and arrest you if you don't.
Tbh, it's probably best to stay a bit back while recording anyway, dont get involved but record for public safety. I imagine it would create an interesting legal test if a cop closes in on an...
Tbh, it's probably best to stay a bit back while recording anyway, dont get involved but record for public safety. I imagine it would create an interesting legal test if a cop closes in on an unaffiliated but legally distanced recording observer.
There is an important distinction that the subject of an investigation can record within that distance, but Inalso bet that bit will be ignored by many officers, and the "without obstructing" part will be tested as well.
On the surface it doesn't look too bad, but problems will come with interpretations.
Here's the thing...there's already laws on the book about interfering with police operations. This doesn't add anything, other than being an additional tool to suppress evidence from people who...
Here's the thing...there's already laws on the book about interfering with police operations. This doesn't add anything, other than being an additional tool to suppress evidence from people who otherwise would not be considered interfering.
So best case, it doesn't add anything new. Worst case you have another tool for the police state.
If you're not the subject, nothing stopping from police from approaching you to within 8 feet and telling you to stop recording. And even if you are, they're going to pretend you aren't for the...
If you're not the subject, nothing stopping from police from approaching you to within 8 feet and telling you to stop recording. And even if you are, they're going to pretend you aren't for the purpose of this, just like their silly game with "you can't go but you're not arrested"
Ugh, conservatives get banned from social media and they scream about the First Amendment (which actually has nothing to do with restrictions by non-governmental companies) and then they also pass...
Ugh, conservatives get banned from social media and they scream about the First Amendment (which actually has nothing to do with restrictions by non-governmental companies) and then they also pass a bull crap law like this that actuly DOES violate the first amendment.
Somehow they have deluded themselves into believing they can eat their cake and have it too.
A few years ago I would have said there was no way this law would stand up in court, but with the wave of extremely conservative judges that Trump appointed...who knows.
My biggest problem with the law, besides the obvious unconstitutionality of it, is that it can easily be used to cover up crimes. It goes beyond the obvious of police using it to stop people filming them from breaking the law. Politicians don't want to be recorded doing something? Just make sure they have a police escort and no one can film whatever they are doing.
I'm usually not a fan of the phrase, "you shouldn't worry about your privacy if you have nothing to hide," but I think it's extremely apt here. Why should the cops be afraid of being filmed if they are doing their job and not abusing their powers?
More specifically, cops are theoretically public servants upholding their public duty, and thus we all as the public have a relevant interest in them performing their duties appropriately. There should be absolutely no expectation of privacy for cops on duty.
You're 100% correct.
Why try to make police accountable when you can save face by pretending nothing shady is happening?
From the wording of the law it sounds like you're not allowed to record an officer within 8ft and if an officer approaches you to within 8ft they can now legally order you to stop recording and arrest you if you don't.
Tbh, it's probably best to stay a bit back while recording anyway, dont get involved but record for public safety. I imagine it would create an interesting legal test if a cop closes in on an unaffiliated but legally distanced recording observer.
There is an important distinction that the subject of an investigation can record within that distance, but Inalso bet that bit will be ignored by many officers, and the "without obstructing" part will be tested as well.
On the surface it doesn't look too bad, but problems will come with interpretations.
Here's the thing...there's already laws on the book about interfering with police operations. This doesn't add anything, other than being an additional tool to suppress evidence from people who otherwise would not be considered interfering.
So best case, it doesn't add anything new. Worst case you have another tool for the police state.
If you're not the subject, nothing stopping from police from approaching you to within 8 feet and telling you to stop recording. And even if you are, they're going to pretend you aren't for the purpose of this, just like their silly game with "you can't go but you're not arrested"
Ugh, conservatives get banned from social media and they scream about the First Amendment (which actually has nothing to do with restrictions by non-governmental companies) and then they also pass a bull crap law like this that actuly DOES violate the first amendment.
Somehow they have deluded themselves into believing they can eat their cake and have it too.