Skip to comments.
Court says public has right to video police in public places(First Circuit)
universalhub.com ^
| 26 August, 2011
| adamg
Posted on 08/29/2011 9:15:51 AM PDT by marktwain
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
A link to the complete ruling is at the site.
It should always be legal to audio or video record public officials in the public performance of their public duties.
1
posted on
08/29/2011 9:15:55 AM PDT
by
marktwain
To: marktwain
If the police have done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear from their actions being recorded. The police have recorders in their vehicles. They can’t have it both ways. If they can record us, then we can rcord them.
2
posted on
08/29/2011 9:19:23 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
To: marktwain
It is for their own safety.
3
posted on
08/29/2011 9:19:52 AM PDT
by
School of Rational Thought
("The proposition that the government is always right is manifested either in corruption or benefits)
To: marktwain
"Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw." I honestly believe "citizen journalists/bloggers will eventually save the republic by breaking the stranglehold the progressives have on disseminating the news!
4
posted on
08/29/2011 9:20:16 AM PDT
by
Mad Dawgg
(If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
To: marktwain
One tiny step back from the abyss.
5
posted on
08/29/2011 9:21:06 AM PDT
by
rockrr
(Everything is different now...)
To: marktwain
Ok, so recording the police in a public area is permitted.
What about recording security at an airport? Is the airport considered public, or would this be like recording security routines in a bank?
6
posted on
08/29/2011 9:22:21 AM PDT
by
Hodar
( Who needs laws; when this FEELS so right?)
To: from occupied ga
This was a good ruling. The rules on this need to be crystal clear so LEOS will have to stop this nonsense.
7
posted on
08/29/2011 9:23:22 AM PDT
by
Clump
(the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
To: marktwain
Not just Police Officers, ALL public officials.
8
posted on
08/29/2011 9:24:34 AM PDT
by
celmak
To: Clump
This was a good ruling. The rules on this need to be crystal clear so LEOS will have to stop this nonsense. Agreed.
9
posted on
08/29/2011 9:24:56 AM PDT
by
from occupied ga
(your own government is your most dangerous enemy)
To: Hodar
How in the world would anyone know you were recording security at the airport. Are they going to check every phone. That Jeannie is already out of the bottle.
10
posted on
08/29/2011 9:28:55 AM PDT
by
org.whodat
(What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
To: marktwain
It should always be legal to audio or video record public officials in the public performance of their public duties.
I have long been convinced that Pennsylvania's very restrictive wiretap laws were written specifically to protect politicians and their conversations with mafia bag men.
To: org.whodat
What do you need a phone for? There are 4GB high resolution cameras you can buy that look and work like fountain pens.
12
posted on
08/29/2011 9:41:00 AM PDT
by
sniper63
(Ever wonder why they call themselves Hamas, but don't eat pork?)
To: Mad Dawgg
I’ll take it a step further. It has always amazed me that, with the constitution worded the way it is, that anyone could seriously suggest that somehow members of the press had more rights in areas like this than the rest of us.
Also, this is another nail in the MSM monopoly’s coffin.
To: marktwain
Bravo! That's one for true freedom!
Mike
14
posted on
08/29/2011 9:43:12 AM PDT
by
MichaelP
(The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools ~HS)
To: sniper63
LOL, Jeannie is out of the bottle. Anyone that thinks they can controls his stuff is sick
15
posted on
08/29/2011 9:46:46 AM PDT
by
org.whodat
(What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
To: Mad Dawgg
I honestly believe "citizen journalists/bloggers will eventually save the republic by breaking the stranglehold the progressives have on disseminating the news! Amen!
16
posted on
08/29/2011 9:48:23 AM PDT
by
OldMissileer
(Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, PK. Winners of the Cold War)
To: Mad Dawgg
INDEED.
however, I’d like to see all of us call them what they are in every mention of such:
REGRESSIVES
They have regressed back to Soddom and Gomorrah.
17
posted on
08/29/2011 9:49:24 AM PDT
by
Quix
(Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
To: School of Rational Thought
“It is for their own safety.”
So what about the safety of the citizenry? This crap about the primacy of “their safety uber alles” needs to be addressed. Aside from actually interfering directly with law enforcement, there should be no strictures on video and audio recording of the cops in action. No cop should be able to interfere with an interested bystander who is recording their actions and there needs to be clear laws regarding this practice together with legal penalties for any LEO abridging that right.
18
posted on
08/29/2011 9:53:05 AM PDT
by
vette6387
(Enough Already!)
To: Mad Dawgg
I honestly believe "citizen journalists/bloggers will eventually save the republic by breaking the stranglehold the progressives have on disseminating the news! Exactly. You could say it started with the refusal to enforce the "Fairness Doctrine" by libertarians appointed by Ronald Reagan. Then the Internet, developed by the military (Advanced Research Projects Agency, now Defense Advanced Research Projects agency DARPA), has destroyed the near monopoly on disseminating information that was developed by the MSM under Roosevelt during WWII.
19
posted on
08/29/2011 9:54:16 AM PDT
by
marktwain
(In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
To: cuban leaf
It has always amazed me that, with the constitution worded the way it is, that anyone could seriously suggest that somehow members of the press had more rights in areas like this than the rest of us. Moi aussi.
ML/NJ
20
posted on
08/29/2011 10:01:42 AM PDT
by
ml/nj
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson