Federal judge: 'You're not allowed to record cops'

Oregon Live ^ | Feb 27,2016 | By Eder Campuzano

[NoLibZone]

A U.S. District judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to record police unless the video is meant to be used as evidence.

Judge Mark Kearney made the ruling against Philadelphians Richard Fields and Amanda Geraci, whose cameras were confiscated by police while the two were recording the officers breaking up a house party. The Third Circuit judge ruled that unless police are recorded with the "stated purpose of being critical of the government," any such video isn't protected speech.

[NoLibZone]

 On June 16, 2014, President Obama nominated Kearney to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_A._Kearney

[E. Pluribus Unum]

What happened to “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?”

I guess that only applies to the peasants.

[Lurker]

SCOTUS has already ruled on this. The judge will be slapped down.

L

[sagar]

Don’t interfere with the law enforcement. Don’t like the law? Change it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Just use hidden cameras ala Project Veritas.

Then they can’t arrest you until after you have them posted on YouTube.

[aimhigh]

But if I post the video online for a 1,000 people to see, doesn’t make me a journalist?

[Defiant]

That is as illogical as I have ever heard from a federal judiciary that says that dancing naked is speech.

[RIghtwardHo]

So is he saying that if you say “I am recording this for the purpose of being critical to the Government” it is OK???

I haven’t read the ruling, but if he does that is the most moronic ruling I’ve ever heard ... and I’ve herd/read some doozies.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

How is photographing the police "interfering with law enforcement."

Cops can wear body-cams, but peasants can't?

[Maceman]

Don’t interfere with the law enforcement. Don’t like the law? Change it.

Recording is not interfering.

[disndat]

But if I post the video online for a 1,000 people to see, doesn’t make me a journalist?

Not only a journalist, but an editor to boot!

[Don Corleone]

Tick tock tick tock watch the Constitution getting shredded.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

So if I am a hundred feet away in my house videoing them from my bedroom window, I am "interfering with law enforcement?"

And if you are going to give me "don't like the law?" nonsense again, kindly have enough integrity to post a link to the applicable law.

[ArtDodger]

So, when approached by the police, I guess we need to tell them we are intending to use it as evidence.....That’ll make ‘em happy campers!

[NoLibZone]

Spoken like a Big G admirer.

[Lagmeister]

In November 2012 The Supreme Court ruled in an Illinois case by upholding the 7th Circuit Court decision that it is Constitutional to record police:

In that critical lower-court ruling in May, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law – one of the toughest of its kind in the country – violates the First Amendment when used against those who record police officers doing their jobs in public.

[Poison Pill]

kindly have enough integrity to post a link to the applicable law.

Judges get to make law on the fly. After the ruling you'll be told that you retroactively violated the law. Sheesh, didn't you get the memo?

[cloudmountain]

Don’t interfere with the law enforcement. Don’t like the law? Change it.

Well, yeah.
What a concept. :o)

[sagar]

Protecting law enforcement from harassment is NOT big gubmint, but rather responsible constitutional government.

If law enforcement is not taken seriously, what is the point of laws?

You anarchists puzzle me.

[Oberon]

Public servants, performing their public duties, in public, have no right to privacy where those duties are concerned. Off the job they’re private citizens, but on the job they’re fair game.