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

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

[sagar]

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

You don’t have to worry about that in your case. If you are a infringing on somebody’s rights or property and your buddy is harassing the cops with the camera, then, yes, your buddy is interfering with the law enforcement.

[halfright]

And a Crucifix in Urine is considered “Art”

[tacticalogic]

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.

How are you supposed to know if they're going to do anything you should be critical before it happens so you can start recording?

[RepRivFarm]

Seriously? Simply recording from a distance is harrassment?

I'm no anarchist, but you guys who have one lip planted on the governments teat, and the other lip planted on the governments butt, don't puzzle me. You simply make me sick.

[Gay State Conservative]

A higher court will knock this down.

[DoughtyOne]

Nobody is advocating someone interfere with law enforcement.

I support the police, but there should be no problem with someone making a video recording of the scene at a safe distance.

Officers should always conduct themselves as if someone was watching.

So should we all in OUR daily lives.

[Blue Highway]

The Third Circuit judge ruled that unless police are recorded with the "stated purpose of being critical of the government,"

Isn't that the same tactic some at the Oregon refuge were doing yet still got arrested and charged with a felony for filming and being critical of the government? Wasn't the charge interfering with law enforcement? Pete Santilli was one of those people and unless I'm mistaken he was just being an online journalist right? Also didn't the passengers of Levoy Finicum's vehicle have their cell phones confiscated? Why?

[House Atreides]

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

Ahh... And what “law” is it that should be changed? Or is it an arbitrary police “decree”?

[mtrott]

Whoa, this judge is way wrong. Officers acting in public have no expectation of privacy. It is a good thing, imo, for them to be on notice that they may be recorded.

[ex91B10]

Already has;see #16.

[Thumper1960]

This is, of course, a ridiculous ruling. It will not survive on appeal. The “judge” is an ass.

[NoLibZone]

Unionized government employees feel the images taken steal their souls.

[Amendment10]

With all due respect to the judge, I have two problems with his decision concerning recording cops.

First, the judge is arguably stealing legislative branch powers to subjectively read this decision into the 1st Amendment.

Next, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate INTRAstate police departments. So not only is this federal judge arguably stealing legislative powers to “amend” the 1st Amendment from the bench, but the judge is arguably breaching the Founding States division of federal and state government, stealing 10th Amendment-protected state legislative powers to do so.

Insights, corrections welcome.

[teletech]

So I guess soon we will need a VOID (Video Owners ID) card to wear a body cam.

[sig226]

What if I criticize everything the government does? ;)

[Political Junkie Too]

If the police want their actions to be kept secret, then we have a Secret Police.

-PJ

[AFreeBird]

Hey asswipe. It’s kinda hard to determine the use for defense before the fact. As for bystanders on the street, should we gouge their eyes out for seeing that which should not be seen?

Typical Obama ass kisser.

[gaijin]

Judge Mark Kearney

[dhs12345]

Wonder if this ruling applies to Rodney King videographer.

[Regulator]

So, being a witness is against the law according to this dimwitted frat rat?