Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court: You Have the Right To Film the Police (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A divided federal appeals court is ruling for the First Amendment, saying the public has a right to film the police. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in upholding the bulk of a lower court's decision against an activist who was conducting what he called a "First Amendment audit" outside a Texas police station, noted that this right is not absolute and is not applicable everywhere. The facts of the dispute are simple. Phillip Turner was 25 in September 2015 when he decided to go outside the Fort Worth police department to test officers' knowledge of the right to film the police. While filming, he was arrested for failing to identify himself to the police. Officers handcuffed and briefly held Turner before releasing him without charges. Turner sued, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful arrest and detention and his First Amendment right of speech. The 2-1 decision Thursday by Judge Jacques Wiener is among a slew of rulings on the topic, and it provides fresh legal backing for the so-called YouTube society where people are constantly using their mobile phones to film themselves and the police. A dissenting appellate judge on the case -- Edith Brown Clement -- wrote Turner was not unlawfully arrested and that the majority opinion from the Texas-based appeals court jumped the gun to declare a First Amendment right here because one "is not clearly established."
Just because there's no talking doesn't mean it isn't speech. There are plenty of gestures that come to mind.
Furthermore, if I made a video of myself describing everything that I saw when something happened, you would consider that speech. So making a video of it actually happening would also be considered speech.
Speech is more about communication. That communication does not have to be done by talking.
Under the US Constitution, you don't have to "clearly establish rights"; rather, the government has to clearly establish that it has been granted certain powers by the people.
We are fortunate that there are few bad actors, but we are unfortunate that their brothers and sister officers are usually very reluctant to report those that are.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
The same way written text, or a drawing with no words, or any other form of expression is considered speech.
The first amendment was created in a time when things like radio, television, the internet, etc. didn't exist and were perhaps beyond imagination. However, it's evident that the idea was ensure a freedom of expression, regardless of medium. I only wish they'd get the same fucking clue when it comes to the fourth amendment because computers and phones are pretty obviously covered by similar reasoning.
Apparently I didn't make my point clear enough:
This ruling wasn't about whether or not the guy had the right to film the cops. (Yeah the summary is misleading. Without looking back at it now, I'm going to guess it was by Beau "clickbait" HD).
> the government should have to clearly establish that it has been granted the powers that it is exercising. The reasoning of the court is abhorrent
You're contradicting yourself there because the dissent you're objecting to says that the government owes the guy money, because the government infringed his rights.
Furthermore, "the reasoning of the court", which you call "abhorrent" says that not only should he sue the government, but also the individual officers as well.
The really funny part is this - the dissent, which is what you actually don't like, I think, is based on the argument that sometimes court rulings can be hard to completely understand - a point you're proving well by completely misunderstanding the topic of this hearing.
An attorney told me that there is a difference between Asking and Ordering. Asking doesn't require an answer while Ordering does. LEOs can ask or order; the Citizen can respond appropriately. A Sheriff's Deputy told me that most civilians cannot tell the difference between Asking and Ordering. So they ask and are given information they want but are not legally entitled to. The task is to determine when the LEO is Asking or Ordering. It never hurts to ask for which the LEO is doing and responding appropriately. IMHO, much of the discussion here shows a misunderstanding of Asking and Ordering.
except....
in the US, you can LOSE YOUR LIFE if you go against a cop.
The same thing can be said about the guy that wants to beat you to the next stoplight or some schmuck standing in line behind you at the store.
So fuck it, I'm not gonna lay down and let them walk all over me. They can kiss my ass if they think they're going to trample my rights without any resistance. I'm a law-abiding citizen and I won't let my rights be chipped away or stripped away, by the police or anyone else.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...