Three cheers for Jerry Brown

[Moonbeam]

I think the highest the issue has gotten - in federal court - is: Simon Glik vs.The City of Boston and IIRC, the first circuit ruled in the favor of Glik who was apparently charged with illegal wiretapping.

I am of the opinion that IF there are no collateral violations of law then it is a First Amendment Right... One cannot reasonably expect to be within feet of a police action and be free to film or to record the dialog between an officer and suspect when either may have an expectation of privacy etc...

I don't get this? I didn't know I had a right of privacy when out on public streets. I didn't know that police could beat people with clubs and say say their criminal action shouldn't be filmed. Maybe I don't know what a collateral violstion is.

 

[LunarRay]

I don't get this? I didn't know I had a right of privacy when out on public streets. I didn't know that police could beat people with clubs and say say their criminal action shouldn't be filmed. Maybe I don't know what a collateral violstion is.

Let me put it this way: I submit you have the right to film or record anything so long as a reasonable person would not expect their right to privacy is being violated. Rodney King's event, for instance, versus recording somone in their home behind closed doors and shuttered windows... I think the standard applied ought to be the 'reasonable person standard'.

Wiretapping seems to have broadened to include lots of stuff... Aside from telephonic transmissions which requires permission from the parties being wiretapped failing a court approving such 'tapping' there seems to be included any kind of communication that one might reasonably expect to be private...

But, in the case of this thread I think that there are competing issues... The officer might deem that a person recording an event is interfering with his ability to enforce the law... this then goes to the court to determine if it was reasonably within the right of the recorder and that it did not violate the officer's need to do his job safely. So... stay far enough away and you'd be safe from arrest, I'd opine. It is not about IF the officer is violating the arrested persons rights... That is another issue.

I don't know how many cases exist or actually how far in the court system the cases have proceeded. What I've written is simply how I see the various cases being handled. What is needed is an universal approach to the issue so folks can enjoy their rights while not interfering with other and perhaps more important rights.

 

[Wreckem]

Republican Pres. Candidate/Governor of Texas Rick Perry feels the same way that the Dem Governor of California Jerry Brown does about it, so this legislation really is not a left wing "progressive" cause. It's more like a cause for Governors of states with very large latino constituencies that vote. 😉

Im not to defend Rick Perry, but what Texas does and what California does is different.

Texas allows an undocumented child who goes to a Texas high school for 4 years and graduates, in state tuition.

California, gives instate tuition, AND allows private & PUBLIC aid to undocumented aliens.

 

[Wreckem]

DING DING DING... We have a winner. Welcome Tex.... Listen, I agree with you. BUT even though most, if not all my friends agree with our shock and horror (Wait for it.....) Sheet like this keeps going like this. Its insane. Nucking FUTS. But it goes on. DAILY. We vote "New guys" in, it gets worse. Red lies. Blue lies. they all LIE. they are in it for themselves....

Undocumented aliens are not eligible for Federal Loans. It does not look like California has a wide ranging state loan program(they have limited loans to those going to teach and go into nursing, which both have work requirements that undocumented aliens wouldn't qualify for). So the supposed issue Tex brought up really isn't an issue at all.

 

[Wreckem]

California: A state where it is illegal to go to a tanning salon if you are under 18, even if you have your parents permission. However, you can get an abortion with or without your parents permission.

Abortion is a constitutional issue, like it or not.

As for the tanning law its a public health issue and long term economic issue. It's a Smart move by CA. The odds of getting deadly forms of skin cancer later in life are high if you are overexposed under a certain age 20 or something. All these dumb fucking girls with leathery ass skin are going get skin cancer and its going to cost a shit ton to treat them. Most of them won't be able to afford it and the state of CA will end up footing the bill. This won't get rid of the issue, but it will lessen CA's burden.

 

[Wreckem]

I think the highest the issue has gotten - in federal court - is: Simon Glik vs.The City of Boston and IIRC, the first circuit ruled in the favor of Glik who was apparently charged with illegal wiretapping.

I am of the opinion that IF there are no collateral violations of law then it is a First Amendment Right... One cannot reasonably expect to be within feet of a police action and be free to film or to record the dialog between an officer and suspect when either may have an expectation of privacy etc...

It won't ever get to the Supreme Court because most jurisdictions have already gone against the bullshit.

As for expectation of privacy in public, there is none.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Funny how Brown said not to long ago said that, "Not all problems need to be solved by government" but then he goes and signs 583 bills into law while only vetoing 93 bills.

Anytime this guy opens his mouth expect him to do the opposite.

 

[Moonbeam]

Funny how Brown said not to long ago said that, "Not all problems need to be solved by government" but then he goes and signs 583 bills into law while only vetoing 93 bills.

Anytime this guy opens his mouth expect him to do the opposite.

Most folk, with the exception of drooling brain dead Republicans, do do the opposite and shut their mouths after opening them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let me put it this way: I submit you have the right to film or record anything so long as a reasonable person would not expect their right to privacy is being violated. Rodney King's event, for instance, versus recording somone in their home behind closed doors and shuttered windows... I think the standard applied ought to be the 'reasonable person standard'.

Wiretapping seems to have broadened to include lots of stuff... Aside from telephonic transmissions which requires permission from the parties being wiretapped failing a court approving such 'tapping' there seems to be included any kind of communication that one might reasonably expect to be private...

But, in the case of this thread I think that there are competing issues... The officer might deem that a person recording an event is interfering with his ability to enforce the law... this then goes to the court to determine if it was reasonably within the right of the recorder and that it did not violate the officer's need to do his job safely. So... stay far enough away and you'd be safe from arrest, I'd opine. It is not about IF the officer is violating the arrested persons rights... That is another issue.

I don't know how many cases exist or actually how far in the court system the cases have proceeded. What I've written is simply how I see the various cases being handled. What is needed is an universal approach to the issue so folks can enjoy their rights while not interfering with other and perhaps more important rights.

Thank you. I can see where you wouldn't want to try to film the cops nose hairs.

 

[monovillage]

Funny how Brown said not to long ago said that, "Not all problems need to be solved by government" but then he goes and signs 583 bills into law while only vetoing 93 bills.

Anytime this guy opens his mouth expect him to do the opposite.

Remember that one of the Bills he vetoed would have stopped the police in Calif. from searching the cell phones of anyone arrested and to do it without a warrant. In some cases he vetoed good bills and in others he passed bad bills.

 

[LunarRay]

It won't ever get to the Supreme Court because most jurisdictions have already gone against the bullshit.

As for expectation of privacy in public, there is none.

I would argue that there IS an expectation of privacy in public... What we have to do first is look at the term 'public'... Is 'public' a place where BOTH parties to a conversation should expect to be overheard or more to the point, wiretapped? IS wiretapping the same in private as it is in public? I think you'll find that 'wiretapping' is the recording of a conversation without the consent required under law regardless of the location.
In the case I mentioned above the charge against the fellow was 'Wiretapping'... The targets were in public and at least one court agreed with the Officer's position at least in part, as I recall.

 

[LunarRay]

Most folk, with the exception of drooling brain dead Republicans, do do the opposite and shut their mouths after opening them.

It seems to me that Moonbeam campaigned and while in office has passed or vetoed bills accordingly.
The student issue is not really a significant cost issue but is an issue adding to the already existing issues regarding undocumented folks... I think it is appropriate that he passed this issue into law. For the latino vote.... smart that is...
Regarding the tanning gizmos, I think that government ought to have a compelling interest because.... hehehehehehehe we have a suspect class (white folks under 18 in need of a tan) and a fundamental right to want to be dark skinned - to pursue happiness...

 

[trenchfoot]

Im not to defend Rick Perry, but what Texas does and what California does is different.

Texas allows an undocumented child who goes to a Texas high school for 4 years and graduates, in state tuition.

California, gives instate tuition, AND allows private & PUBLIC aid to undocumented aliens.

I agree that their methods differ as you have indicated. However, they are doing it for the same reason. 😉

 

[Baked]

Fuck you Jerry Brown

You can say that again. The motherfucker cut the fucking tax by 1 percent and is giving free money to illegal immigrants? These people need to be deported and get in line like everybody else if they want to come to America. WTF is wrong with this guy?!

 

[bfdd]

And at the core of conservatism is the amoral and totally misanthropic notion of social darwinism, which not coincidentally was a core principle of fascism.

In all seriousness, I disagree with your assertions about progressivism. It's just the classic fallacy of the excluded middle that all ideologues seem to engage in. To you, progressivism=marxism, since your definition of progressivism is indistinguishable from Marxism. Sure, if we define progressivism as marxism then your definition is correct. The trouble is you fail to see a middle ground between the pure statism of the Bolshevics and the anarcho-capitalism of the libertarians. That middle ground is where modern U.S. progressives lie. To be sure, depending on the individual they are at different places within that spectrum. The trouble is you don't see the spectrum.

there is no middle ground on infringing on my rights. none. using government to force me to do things for the "greater good" infringes on my rights and hinders my pursuit of happiness. group think and group identity is killing the USA, liberalism and progressivism are not closely related, "liberalism" has been hijacked for years please. as have the "conservatives". just a monster of group think now, no notion of individuality.

 

[Wreckem]

I would argue that there IS an expectation of privacy in public... What we have to do first is look at the term 'public'... Is 'public' a place where BOTH parties to a conversation should expect to be overheard or more to the point, wiretapped? IS wiretapping the same in private as it is in public? I think you'll find that 'wiretapping' is the recording of a conversation without the consent required under law regardless of the location.
In the case I mentioned above the charge against the fellow was 'Wiretapping'... The targets were in public and at least one court agreed with the Officer's position at least in part, as I recall.

Courts have struck this shit(cops arresting people for videotapping them) down repeatedly. Currently there is only one state that it is illegal to record cops with or without their knowledge while in public and that is Illnois.

Most states do not view video taping in public the same as wiretapping. Most(by most I mean all but a few) jurisdications require the conversation to be in a private place for wiretapping laws to apply. Alot of statutes also require the recording of audio to be done in secret. Several states wiretapping laws only cover electronic(telephone, wire, email etc) communications.

There are cases were it was legal for someone to record a persons conversation when the person was in thier apartment but the conversation could be heard outdoors. In most(I wont say all) jurisdications, if you are in a public place your conversations are fair game. If its quasi-public, its fact specific. And in private places its illegal. There is a forth catergory, public places where there is a subjective expectation to privacy, but those are few in number and are places like public bathrooms, phonebooths, jail bathrooms).

If SCotUS ever took the issue, which they wont because it will never get there, they would smack it down by saying there is no expectation of privacy in PUBLIC PLACES. If you dont want your conversation recorded don't have it in the open public or live in Illinois.

 

[LunarRay]

If SCotUS ever took the issue, which they wont because it will never get there, they would smack it down by saying there is no expectation of privacy in PUBLIC PLACES. If you dont want your conversation recorded don't have it in the open public or live in Illinois.

SCotUS would only grant cert if there is disagreement among the courts below on this or any issue. I don't see that there will be an issue among any Federal Circuit so I agree that this won't see Scalia's wisdom overwhelming rational thought.

The First Circuit has rendered its opinion and to my knowledge it is the first such opinion from a Federal Circuit Court on the issue. But as I see it, what this does is recognizes the 'Right' but does not provide the dynamics where this 'Right' is subordinated to the 'Needs' of the Police in the performance of their duties... That is the issue that must be addressed and codified. What is the 'Reasonable and Prudent Person' standard - if that is applicable - one must observe in order to record and not interfere in a Police action? I feel that this will become a case by case issue. I doubt that 'Wiretapping' will be the charge when someone video/audio tapes a Police action two feet away from where folks are getting Pepper sprayed for gathering and failing to disperse as ordered... (rightly or wrongly).

I do remember the phrase from awhile back... "... Fine, well... when you need a cop call a hippy ..." Courts have held that to video a trial introduces a distraction to the testimony and has an adverse impact on the proceedings so from my perspective Officer safety is the first most important issue with evidence of potential Police violation of rights being subordinated to it... reasonably so, that is.

 

[LunarRay]

Remember that one of the Bills he vetoed would have stopped the police in Calif. from searching the cell phones of anyone arrested and to do it without a warrant. In some cases he vetoed good bills and in others he passed bad bills.

There is a logic that suggests the voting in the two California houses and the actions of the Governor are simply the actions that will get these folks reelected... That, therefore, indicates that the folks who elected these lawmakers support their actions, No? Is that not the function of the Lawmakers... to vote the wishes of their constituency... When ever a politician remains in office they MUST be doing what their constituency wants.... Seems to me... So it holds that we the people want what Brown, et. al. have done. At least reasonably so.

 

[Moonbeam]

You can say that again. The motherfucker cut the fucking tax by 1 percent and is giving free money to illegal immigrants? These people need to be deported and get in line like everybody else if they want to come to America. WTF is wrong with this guy?!

He's a lot more intelligent than you are and a lot more politically astute so you will see him as having problems.

 

[Craig234]

Funny how Brown said not to long ago said that, "Not all problems need to be solved by government" but then he goes and signs 583 bills into law while only vetoing 93 bills.

Anytime this guy opens his mouth expect him to do the opposite.

So, he signs a percent of bills into law that's close to the normal percent governors sign, and you attack him basing zero of your post on the specifics of anything wrong in a bill.