Skeptic Bob
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,626
- Reaction score
- 19,488
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Really, so if you are stopped for a traffic citation and had a camera running on your dash to record the incident, yo would be guilty under this law.
That is not right.
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.
Which means the blanket statement is wrong.Note it excludes news people.
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.
Except for the language of the bill that outlaws recording of police under the circumstances spelled out within.
"Huffington Post troll" ??????
It is already illegal to record police while they are in certain situations so is it your opinion that we should be able to follow cops into the rest room and record them in there, even though we can't record other people in there? I guess that you would agree that other public decency laws make it illegal to record cops...Except for the language of the bill that outlaws recording of police under the circumstances spelled out within.
The internet is full of trolls hired by the far left slim like George Soros to post crap like this and many forum sites give them leave to post deceptive titles like this one so that is all they do all daylong. Many of the trolls drop their bag of crap and then run away holding their noses."Huffington Post troll" ??????
It is already illegal to record police while they are in certain situations so is it your opinion that we should be able to follow cops into the rest room and record them in there, even though we can't record other people in there? I guess that you would agree that other public decency laws make it illegal to record cops...
The internet is full of trolls hired by the far left slim like George Soros to post crap like this and many forum sites give them leave to post deceptive titles like this one so that is all they do all daylong. Many of the trolls drop their bag of crap and then run away holding their noses.
It is not illegal to video police officers in the state of Texas. Is it? And this bill would not make it illegal to video tape cops from a reasonable distance, would it??
We have all seen cases where as many as ten people were crowded around the cop with their phones as he tried to manage the situation. Most cameras have zoom functions so there is no need to get closer than 25 feet if you want to record the cop's actions.
As I mentioned in another post the buffer zone should be waved if YOU are the one the officer is interacting with.
True a select few would be permitted to video events.Which means the blanket statement is wrong.
As I stated.
Which means the blanket statement is wrong.
As I stated.
Then you shouldn't be quoting me this late in the game.Most of us have moved on from discussing the headline
What does this bill do that existing laws cannot?It is important that the bill has not yet been put to a vote, and is subject to amendment after the extensive public debate in the media, on message boards, and on social networks like Twitter.
The full text of the Texas penal code affected by the proposed amendment:
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 38. OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION
The full proposed text of the amendment to the Penal code:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/HB02918I.pdf#navpanes=0
Jason Villaba who introduced the bill in the Texas legislature defends it on Twitter:
Texas Bill Makes it a Crime to Photograph Police From Within 25 Feet of Them
It is a reasonable bill to keep people from crowding the police officer trying to get pictures whether those be the Paparazzi or just ordinary citizens eager for a 'personal scoop' or something like that. It also provides some protection for the person stopped for a traffic offense or whatever who almost certainly would not appreciate his/her photo plastered all over whatever. The issue of photographing from inside the car when stopped for questioning or ticketing by the police or otherwise those already there or those involved in the incident can be corrected by a simple correction of the language in the bill.
To me, it would make sense for it to apply to everybody and not just those with cameras.
Why not suggest that instead of the silly drum beat that the police want this law so they can abuse power?
What does this bill do that existing laws cannot?
Regardless how it's defended, the fact that it targets photographers suggests to me that it has absolutely nothing to do with safety and/or ability to do their work, and everything to do with discouraging filming. Plus, there are already laws on the books that require people to not interfere, so this legislation is wholly unnecessary.It gives the police officers a reasonable distance to move crowds back from whatever the police action is. Where it goes wrong is in specifically targeting photographers instead of everybody. Almost certainly it was motivated by people with cell phone or other cameras trying to get close in on the action, but again, that is an easy fix by simply amending the language in the law to include everybody and not just photographers. If you read those tweets, in my third link, the intent was not to prevent photography of police actions. I think Villaba just didn't think through the problem of having a camera running by somebody already at the scene and how the law as proposed could make a 'criminal' of that person.
It is a reasonable bill to keep people from crowding the police officer trying to get pictures whether those be the Paparazzi or just ordinary citizens eager for a 'personal scoop' or something like that. It also provides some protection for the person stopped for a traffic offense or whatever who almost certainly would not appreciate his/her photo plastered all over whatever. The issue of photographing from inside the car when stopped for questioning or ticketing by the police or otherwise those already there or those involved in the incident can be corrected by a simple correction of the language in the bill.
To me, it would make sense for it to apply to everybody and not just those with cameras.
Why not suggest that instead of the silly drum beat that the police want this law so they can abuse power?
The bill has been dropped because, the bill's author said, the public opposition was so solid. "...opposition to the bill was swift, and came from 'far-left civil libertarians to our far-right people who believe that we were somehow limiting First Amendment rights,' Villalba said." Bill to limit filming of police activity is dropped | Dallas Morning News
I have it on good authority that bullets are useless beyond 80 feet.What's really bull**** here is that anyone carrying a gun has to be 100 feet away from the incident, pretty much nullifying a good part of the adult population's ability to accurately video the incident.
"Hey, you get to decide....videotape for justice's sake or risk losing your right to own and carry a firearm?" Nice.:roll:
Regardless how it's defended, the fact that it targets photographers suggests to me that it has absolutely nothing to do with safety and/or ability to do their work, and everything to do with discouraging filming. Plus, there are already laws on the books that require people to not interfere, so this legislation is wholly unnecessary.
All we can evaluate is what was proposed, and the proposal amended a law that already made it illegal to interfere with police, and added a provision that made it a presumed violation of that law just for photographing or recording the police within 25 or 100 feet. So the target is clearly those RECORDING the police. Not bystanders in general - ONLY those with cameras turned on.
If there is some evidence the existing law doesn't adequately allow officers to do their job, then present that argument. No one has done so yet that I've seen.
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?