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.
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.
Malouf should be in prison for a number of reasons including armed robbery and battery.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
In Lovell v. City of Griffin, Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=303&invol=444
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
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.
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.
So your theory is that cops who are willing to beat you up and take your camera will be unwilling to beat you up and take your geek glasses?
Life needs more saving throws.
but you can only file a lawsuit for MONEY... you can't file a lawsuit say to compel the court to disolve their marriages and send their kids to CPS. You can't file a lawsuit to have them striped naked and paraded through prison for a week.... I'd even settle for a 7x7 whipping on the courthouse steps.
THOSE are the kinds of things that need to happen to stop these abuses.... hurtful, spiteful, public punishments.
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.
- - -
May you live in interesting times. - Ancient Chinese curse
... 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...
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.