- Joined
- Dec 15, 2012
- Messages
- 19,735
- Reaction score
- 12,275
- Location
- Lawn Guyland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
And? Not my argument.
Making a blanket statement saying the bill would make recording police illegal is wrong as it doesn't.
It only make it illegal under certain circumstances.
And again. Not my argument.The most important "certain type" would be made illegal. That makes the bill a whole lot less innocuous as some would want you to believe.
If the drafters of the bill were worried about interference with police performing their duties the bill would call for a 25' perimeter excluding ALL people, not just those with a camera.
The bill doesn't contain an exception for persons being investigated by the officer so presumably a motorist stopped by the police could not legally videotape the encounter under this law.
Courts have consistently held that recording police in the performance of their duties is permissible under the First Amendment. Even if this was passed it likely would not stand a Constitutional challenge.
What his bill IS aimed at, Villalba said, are cop-watch groups that consist of “agitators posing as journalists in order to interfere” with officers doing their job.
“They follow the police scanner, and as soon as they hear about an arrest,” he said, “they immediately get in the vicinity of the officer and start taunting the officer while the arrest is occurring.”
Villalba said representatives of the Dallas Police Association and a state peace officers’ group approached him about a bill that could give cops on the street a established camera-free zone (except for media) so cops could go about their jobs.
Requiring camera happy spectators to keep their distance is not only reasonable, but is imperative for the safety of the police officer and sometimes those he is questioning or arresting or giving a ticket to or whatever. In especially highly charged situations like the fight following the hockey game etc., the policeman often has multiple issues in progress and doesn't need to worry about who is crowding around him. It isn't much different than the police order to 'Move along, there's nothing to see here" kind of order to disperse a crowd that detracts from a police investigation.
This topic was already made and discussed.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/219304-republican-wants-shred-1st-amendment.html
It does not make recording police illegal.
It makes certain types of recordings illegal.
Requiring camera happy spectators to keep their distance is not only reasonable, but is imperative for the safety of the police officer and sometimes those he is questioning or arresting or giving a ticket to or whatever. In especially highly charged situations like the fight following the hockey game etc., the policeman often has multiple issues in progress and doesn't need to worry about who is crowding around him. It isn't much different than the police order to 'Move along, there's nothing to see here" kind of order to disperse a crowd that detracts from a police investigation.
Within 25 feet.
I am a strong supporter in the public's right to record police officers. But I also don't have a problem with giving the officers a buffer zone to do their work. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on what that distance should be.
Sounds about right. Give them room to do their thing and use zoom if you must. I don't get gawking at all, no matter how close or far.
Was the SC shooting filmed from more than 25 feet?
Was the SC shooting filmed from more than 25 feet?
Yes. Its OBVIOUSLY more than 25 ft.
Yes. Its OBVIOUSLY more than 25 ft.
25 feet buffer is all it is.
nuff' said.
If the drafters of the bill were worried about interference with police performing their duties the bill would call for a 25' perimeter excluding ALL people, not just those with a camera.
The bill doesn't contain an exception for persons being investigated by the officer so presumably a motorist stopped by the police could not legally videotape the encounter under this law.
Courts have consistently held that recording police in the performance of their duties is permissible under the First Amendment. Even if this was passed it likely would not stand a Constitutional challenge.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?