Slashdot Mirror
Obama Administration Supports Journalist Arrested For Recording Cops
New submitter SplatMan_DK writes "Ars Technica reports that the Obama Administration has filed a brief in support of a Maryland photojournalist who says he was arrested and beaten after he took photographs of the police arresting two other men. The brief by the Justice Department argues that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to photograph the actions of police officers in public places and prohibits police officers from arresting journalists for exercising those rights. Context: 'Garcia says that when Officer Christopher Malouf approached him, Garcia identified himself as a member of the press and held up his hands to show he was only holding a camera. But Malouf "placed Mr. Garcia in a choke hold and dragged him across the street to his police cruiser," where he "subjected him to verbal and physical abuse." According to Garcia's complaint, Malouf "forcibly dragged Mr. Garcia across the street, throwing him to the ground along the way, inflicting significant injuries." Garcia says Malouf "kicked his right foot out from under him, causing Mr. Garcia to hit his head on the police cruiser while falling to the ground." Garcia claims that Malouf took the video card from Garcia's camera and put it in his pocket. The card was never returned. Garcia was charged with disorderly conduct. In December 2011, a judge found Garcia not guilty.'"
There must be something (besides a dusting of snow) in the DC air - this appears to be an entirely reasonable reaction by the DOJ.
When a lowly citizen destroys evidence, it's a crime.
Considering the administration's attacks on whistleblowers, irony abounds.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
Support is not writing a brief. Support is indicting the officers in question for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. These officers deserve the same treatment Obama's DOJ gave Aaron Swartz.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well, if it's anything like the Alex Landau case, there won't be any charges against the police.
The officers should be charged with theft and assault. They should also be fired.
When someone in teh eevil gummint does something good, they scramble all over to yell out things that teh eevil gummint has done bad.
The brief explicitly says "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the publicâ(TM)s and the mediaâ(TM)s rights to record here".
This is all very strange. Hang on, is it Opposite Day?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
OK,so what's illegal about this.It is not illegal to record cops,it is legal to do so.If this guy has any sense h will file a law suit against them
why are they a special class? and how to tell the difference? do blogs count?
Well, it is newsworthy that this happened...
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Malouf should be in prison for a number of reasons including armed robbery and battery.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Video card? What's a video card? Do they mean an SD card?
They want to support the "journalists" other wise it would mean "everyone" this way they can come back and arrest/prosecute non journalists.
Maybe someone should start a society of citizen journalists and let anyone join so everyone can be a journalist.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
How dare he give the populous the right to monitor the police state.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re: the Obama Justice Dept. Even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and then.
Because if we decide we don't support you, our drones leave no evidence but a vapor trail.
Which is why if you are going to record the police, make sure it's uploading live or will e-mail the pictures away from the clumsy hands of the law
There's this app for New Yorkers evidently. Any suggestions from anyone for those of us who don't live in NY?
TFS is (and so is TFA) misleading when it says that the government argues that the Constitution "prohibits police officers from arresting journalists for exercising those rights", as the actual brief filed by the Justice Department explicitly argues (heck, its a bolded section heading) that "Members of the Public and the Media Are Both Entitled to Protection Under the First Amendment", and, more specifically, "The First Amendment protections afforded members of the public and press when recording public police activity are coextensive" and "Although Mr. Garcia alleges facts here that show that he is a member of the press, this makes no difference to the analysis under the First Amendment",and "Courts have long held that recordings made by private citizens of police conduct or other items of public interest are entitled to First Amendment protection".
The DoJ isn't arguing that police can't arrest journalists from recording police activity, the DoJ is arguing that "that both the First and Fourth Amendments protect an individual who peacefully photographs police activity on a public street", and that "core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis" for discretionary charges such as disturbing the peace, etc., and, finally, that "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media" without distinction.
Is this 2 good rulings out of the Obama administration in a single day? Is it April Fools' Day already?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Society will be a lot better off the day we stop humoring authority figures abusing their power. It shouldn't even be a question that the Officer should lose his job, yet I bet he's still getting a paycheck for something he's clearly unsuitable for. Terrible thing.
That's one problem Google Glass will sort out - none of this `you can't film here` crap. I'll film wherever the hell I like, officer.
The cynic in me guesses that this is an attempt to prevent the case from getting to the Supreme Court. See, this way, they say that "legitimate journalists" can video tape police, but not those bloggers or citizens.
This argument becomes harder to maintain when you read the actual government brief, and realize that while Ars Technica (and, following them, the Slashdot summary) use language that makes it seem like a government defense of special privileges for journalists, the actual brief takes the exact opposite position, arguing "that both the First and Fourth Amendments protect an individual who peacefully photographs police activity on a public street" and "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the public’s and the media’s rights to record here."
I think the reference is more to the fact that, as a device that is normally connected and uploading to the internet, the fact that beating someone up and taking their "geek glasses" won't actually let you seize and destroy the recording, and just makes it more likely that, on top of whatever they were recording that made you want to seize the device getting out, the video of your beating them up to seize the device will also get out, which sort of removes the whole incentive for the beating-and-seizing behavior in the first place.
It will never be seen again. And the journalist will be considered lucky that he still has his camera. Given all of the talk I hear from people down in the USA concerning the sanctity of private property, it seems somewhat strange that the government would be so myopic in matters like this. I suppose I shouldn't find that strange, I guess. Just another example of how the people with power live under different laws than the rest of us.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
... that until I read the summary, I actually wasn't sure if the headline meant the Obama administration was on the side of the journalist, or was on the side of arresting journalists who record cops...
... if he hit his head, I guess it's not inconceivable ?
Someone needs to execute that degenerate fuck before he victimizes anyone else.
Mod parent up. Too many people in this forum think that the post is only talking about journalists.
4. They can kill to protect others. i.e. a man about to push the button on a bomb that will kill people. They just need probable cause.
When the justice department does something slashdot likes but "US Justice Department" when the "Obama Administration" prosecuted Andrew Swartz.
Taking a person's property without justification and under color of authority is a serious crime.
Because that's the sort of thing that will send you straight to jail in the most transparent administration ever.
People that apologize for this administration were the same ones that were screaming bloody murder about a secretive review by an actual member of the Judicial branch of government, i.e., a FISA warrant.
Let's face it, every one of these apologists would have made great apologists for Stalin or the Nazi's, and I worked with Mike Godwin, so I DO have the right to make that comparison.
Fire the officers involved and charge them with assault.
Go to lengths to find and return his memory card, because it's more than just the monetary value of the hardware.
Oblige the department to publicly issue an official apology and compensate this man financially for medical costs, lost wages, undue hardship and punition of the department (make sure a good chunk of that money comes out of the involved officers' pockets, pensions and severance. I could care fuck-all about what difficulties it will cause for thugs in uniform who think they can illegally inflict force on anyone who "disagrees" with them while acting well one's rights)
Otherwise, this "support" is nothing more than farts in the wind.
Also can we stop saying Obama Administration? Is the US gubermint. When we are talking about Obama let's bring these issues back into context but when we are talking about the DoJ, calling it Obama Administration is just insidious bickering.
But... the future refused to change.
I thought it was funny when I read it but damned if somebody out there isn't playing Jumanji!
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
There needs to be REAL punishments for cops that act this way. They should have a responsibility to know the laws and when in doubt refer to someone who does. Instead you get tons of cops who simply arrest people for whatever they think. It's great that this reporter was found not guilty but they had to waste time and money to get to that verdict. So sad that cops can disrupt peoples lives without any recourse for the little people.
That's a suspiciously sounding Arab surname.
Does police OWN the streets?
Casteism
Well, I have heard of something referred to as, "Megan's Page" as a public statement. And I ask, "Why would a cop that has no problem attacking the unarmed be fearful?" From my point of view, this could be a "badge of honor page?" One could even be rewarded with a Rubber Gun? My apologies to Clint Eastwood.
The parent should be modded up.
Even off duty cops feel it's their right to harass anyone showing, anything (in their view), that constitutes abnormal behavior.
re: That applies even to journalists, as well as to fake journalists like O'Keefe, and to bystanders who record it on cellphones.[emphasis mine]
.
There's no such thing as a "fake journalist". If you keep a journal, whether as a writer for a newpaper (french "journal", "journaux") or as a writer for your own newsletter or as a typer for a web-page that publishes your own writings and musings, you are a journalist. Calling someone a "citizen journalist" is a way for the news-service employed to look down on the news-gatherers and reporters who may not be getting paid for their services.
.
Even freelancers (and possibly plagiarists) are getting offended when these for-profit corporations and companies dare to request free work from them, or to copy and publish their work without a fee: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/206237/atlantic-is-sorry-to-have-offended-freelancer-with-request-for-free-content/#comment-820797749
.
Actually, let me take back part of what I said. There is such a thing as a fake journalist: perhaps when someone prints or makes or purports to have fake credentials or calls themselves a journalist in order to get information which they have no intent of publishing or using in a story but is part of an investigation, or is just part of a ploy to be somewhere or pass through an otherwise restricted area. That would be a valid example of a "fake journalist". What you were describing is NOT a fake journalist. It's just someone who's not "credentialed" by some corporation or business as a newsie. And we don't even want to go into the problem of allowing governmental bodies to be the accrediting or validating agency for "journalists" or "news gatherers" or "reporters".
re: How dare he give the populous the right to monitor the police state.
;>)
We, the populace, are indeed populous!!! One is a noun, the other is adjectival. --- signed, the Homonym patrol. Our motto: that word does not mean what you think it means.