Chicago Journalism Professor arrested for videoing police and they erase his video

[Deleted member 4644]

That would be the best argument. I did some digging around, and there are inconsistent court decisions on that. Most recently the First Circuit ruled exactly that - that freedom of the press means citizens can tape the cops. Sounds like an issue that the SCOTUS will have to resolve.

I have a problem with it though - any sort of videotaping can be said to have a journalistic purpose, especially with the internet being a venue for anyone to "publish" anything they want. It could apply to taping private conversations, and not just of public officials. I think some sort of true journalistic purpose has to be shown for this to apply.

I would MUCH MUCH rather err on the side of free speech than the alternative.

The definition of the words of the Constitution are, of course, subject to some debate, partially because it was written 200 years ago before TV, the internet, bloggers, etc.

Remember, though, at the time, most "press" were small operations -- pamphlets, local printers, etc.

So I think if the Founding Fathers looked at bloggers, or Youtube, they would very much consider that part of the Press.

Finally, I would point out that the professor who was arrested was a professor of journalism. Case closed.

 

[Matthiasa]

I like the people for taking away freedoms in this country in this thread.... if you don't like freedom it just move North Korea... Not to hard.

 

[CanOWorms]

Here's a few months old First Circuit opinion ruling in favor of a lawyer who was arrested filming police officers on Boston Common.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf

It goes into many of the policy reasons why police officers may be recorded.

 

[HumblePie]

Here's a few months old First Circuit opinion ruling in favor of a lawyer who was arrested filming police officers on Boston Common.

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf

It goes into many of the policy reasons why police officers may be recorded.

Reading that pretty much sums it up. These anti-wire tap laws for public recordings of government officials are non-Constitutional. The professor here should press suit against this law. He will win big. I'd be surprised if there weren't lawyers ringing his doorbell constantly to try and represent this case because it could be a fairly sizable settlement.

Basically if you are a government official and are the public view your actions can and SHOULD be recorded with scrutiny while doing your official duties.

As for Nebor, your opinions are idiotic at best here. Go back to North Korea.

 

[wirednuts]

well it is chicago... hes lucky the officers didnt just shoot him for talking back. but good for him, we should be allowed to video tape anything a cop does. they are allowed to videotape us apparently, so it would only be fair.

 

[BladeVenom]

I'd like to think erasing the video is tampering with evidence somehow.

Destroying evidence is a crime in most states. But they are police, so they'll get away with it.

 

[brandonbull]

What part of the Constitution do you believe guarentees people the right to videotape police activities?

Good thing it's the other way around. What part of the Constitution do you believe guarantees police the right not to be video taped?

 

[Zebo]

Wait till internment caps get fired up Dave after economy collapses. There will be no cameras and no witnesses.

 

[dmcowen674]

Wait till internment caps get fired up Dave after economy collapses. There will be no cameras and no witnesses.

How will they round up and contain 3 million people in Chicago alone?

Wall off the entire city and surroundings?

 

[piasabird]

They should charge the police with wilful destruction of evidence to evade prosecution. If there is no evidence, there is no crime.

 

[child of wonder]

Videotaping the police is every citizen's right and responsibility to ensure they don't abuse their authority.

End of story.

 

[woolfe9999]

Reading that pretty much sums it up. These anti-wire tap laws for public recordings of government officials are non-Constitutional. The professor here should press suit against this law. He will win big. I'd be surprised if there weren't lawyers ringing his doorbell constantly to try and represent this case because it could be a fairly sizable settlement.

Basically if you are a government official and are the public view your actions can and SHOULD be recorded with scrutiny while doing your official duties.

As for Nebor, your opinions are idiotic at best here. Go back to North Korea.

The 7th Circuit (covering Illinois) is deciding this very issue right now, but one of justices on the panel made a comment to the press that suggests he favors upholding the law.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/763929...o-law-forbidding-audio-recording-of-cops.html

If the 7th Circuit upholds the law, it will be up to the SCOTUS to choose being the First and Seventh Circuit holdings, assuming it agrees to hear the case. If it does not, the Illinois law will stand since the 7th Circuit ruling is binding there.

- wolf

 

[Zorba]

What part of the Constitution do you believe guarentees people the right to videotape police activities?

I feel police should have the same lack of rights as I do. I can be video recorded every second I am in public by the state, corporations and individuals. Why should police have a higher expectation of privacy than a citizen?

 

[GrGr]

This has been precedent in Illinois for a while. It's disruptive and counter-productive for people to video the police in the line of duty.

In states that allow it, police departments are turning to technological means to keep from being recorded. I put forth the idea in another thread to create a type of QR code on police uniforms that is recognizable by all photographic\video equipment and prevents recording at a hardware level. Coupled with tineye type image scanning at the ISP level set to detect those QR codes in photographs taken with non-compliant equipment, we could effectively protect the police from the distribution of unlawful records taken in the line of duty, enabling them to do their jobs more efficiently.

You mean outside of the law of course. It is almost amusing watching the US slide down into the brown fascist shit.

 

[GrGr]

I feel police should have the same lack of rights as I do. I can be video recorded every second I am in public by the state, corporations and individuals. Why should police have a higher expectation of privacy than a citizen?

Because Might Makes Right. That has been the US policy abroad since the invasion of Iraq if not before. Why should Americans have any more rights than the Iraqi people or the Palestian people at the hands of Israel/US? No, you are all Palestinians now, bow down before your masters and kiss their butt.

 

[cybrsage]

This has been precedent in Illinois for a while. It's disruptive and counter-productive for people to video the police in the line of duty.

In states that allow it, police departments are turning to technological means to keep from being recorded. I put forth the idea in another thread to create a type of QR code on police uniforms that is recognizable by all photographic\video equipment and prevents recording at a hardware level. Coupled with tineye type image scanning at the ISP level set to detect those QR codes in photographs taken with non-compliant equipment, we could effectively protect the police from the distribution of unlawful records taken in the line of duty, enabling them to do their jobs more efficiently.

Only if all photographic equipment is retrofitted or the makers are forced to include a hardware based solution to work with the QR code. Since, so far, neither are true, this is impossible to happen.

The only way to force makers to include such a chip is via legislation. Since the courts have already ruled the police have no expectation of privacy during an arrest in public, such a law will not survive the judical branch's review.

Sorry to make all your techno talk become meaningless.

 

[cybrsage]

Because Might Makes Right. That has been the US policy abroad since the invasion of Iraq if not before. Why should Americans have any more rights than the Iraqi people or the Palestian people at the hands of Israel/US? No, you are all Palestinians now, bow down before your masters and kiss their butt.

We are talking about internal US laws and rights. Do you have some sort of Palestine fetish?

 

[Nebor]

Only if all photographic equipment is retrofitted or the makers are forced to include a hardware based solution to work with the QR code. Since, so far, neither are true, this is impossible to happen.

The only way to force makers to include such a chip is via legislation. Since the courts have already ruled the police have no expectation of privacy during an arrest in public, such a law will not survive the judical branch's review.

Sorry to make all your techno talk become meaningless.

Well obviously you couldn't retrofit everything, that's why you'd have a Tineye type image scanner at the ISP level checking uploaded images for the QR codes. And the manufacturers would have to be somehow compelled into cooperating. Failing legislative action to that end, simply stipulate that in order to be considered for police\military contract purchasing your entire civilian product line must be compliant with the QR censoring system. Capitalistic competition should take it from there. They'll want those .gov sales, and as soon as one of the manufacturer complies, they all will, because consumers faced with an entire market of QR compliant devices will still buy them but they won't want to miss out on the .gov sales.

It'd be much easier to implement under a one world government too. Also there'd be the issue of people using legacy photographic equipment simply blurring\censoring the QR code to allow for uploading. But it would stop people from using their iPhone 6 to upload live photos and video of police action.

Obviously this is all just theoretical. But all great things start with a dream and an idea.

 

[chucky2]

How will they round up and contain 3 million people in Chicago alone?

Wall off the entire city and surroundings?

If by that you mean Crook Co. also, I think you could get a lot of support there. Making it a seperate state might be even better. We could call it State of Crook, since Chicago is in Crook.

One can only dream....

 

[Texashiker]

A similar law in Maryland was recently struck down in federal court.

This should be a no brainer.

 

[cybrsage]

Well obviously you couldn't retrofit everything, that's why you'd have a Tineye type image scanner at the ISP level checking uploaded images for the QR codes.

This would also require legislation, which would never pass judicial review.

And the manufacturers would have to be somehow compelled into cooperating. Failing legislative action to that end, simply stipulate that in order to be considered for police\military contract purchasing your entire civilian product line must be compliant with the QR censoring system. Capitalistic competition should take it from there.

Only for domestic companies, and those few foreign companies the military is allowed to buy from.

It'd be much easier to implement under a one world government too. Also there'd be the issue of people using legacy photographic equipment simply blurring\censoring the QR code to allow for uploading. But it would stop people from using their iPhone 6 to upload live photos and video of police action.

This is true, because then there will be no constitution to violate.

 

[Axon]

Honestly, most cops I've dealt with, though usually a little irritable and condescending, do their jobs well. I see no reason for any police officer to fear being recorded. That is, unless they're doing something outside of their powers, which, of course, is what this is all about.

 

[cybrsage]

agreed

 

[Ninjahedge]

They should have it like any public servant or any citizen.

You are in public, you can be videotaped. You are in private (and not serving a public duty, like, say, breaking up a party), your life is private.

So long as the cameras do not get in the WAY of things, like reporters blocking a path of egress, then they have no right to tell them to stop (or clear the way).

They NEVER have the right, in the line of duty, to demand the forfeiture of the originals.

 

[hal2kilo]

You mean outside of the law of course. It is almost amusing watching the US slide down into the brown fascist shit.

I take it you are not from the UK then.