That means those municipalities that make it illegal, can no longer do so. That means those states that make it illegal, can no longer do so.
I always wondered how in the world it could be justified that it does not fall under the first amendment. It seemed like a glaring problem with those "anti-filming-cops" laws.
Do you agree with this ruling? What are problems that may occur from this? What about problems of making it illegal?
Edit - I'm reading that this ruling only applies to the district from which the case was escalated and the SC will have to make a ruling for all states if/when more cases come before the SC. So this may not be as awesome as I thought it was.
Re: Supreme Court rules that filming Law Enforcement is protected by the 1st Amendment.
The First Circuit Court of Appeal isn't the Supreme Court.
There are, in fact, no laws that say "you can't film cops". The laws are meant to forbid things like wiretapping and eavesdropping. It's absurd to say that say filming a cop in a public place falls under that heading and it looks like so far the courts have said the same thing.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
It's not the supreme court but no doubt the supreme court will say the same. Getting tired of the nonsense-bullshit some authorities want to pull to cover their ass rather than addressing the corruption and power abuse. This just makes it easier for the police department to get sued if one of their cops decides to prevent a citizen from filming what they believe may be police brutality. Good shit and bless America.
"In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer. [IL, MD, MA]
Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists."
And in some municipalities, it is illegal to film an on duty police officer even if it is in a public place.
Now that you know that, if you go to travel and you have the inkling to record a police officer, check that city's laws and if you're in Massachusetts, Maryland, or Illinois, don't do it.
Both you and XYZ obviously know something I don't. That's the first time I have seen or heard about that website. I heard the announcement on the radio and google searched when I got home. I found what looks like the first decent article on it.
The implied by you and XYZ is that the website is "bad". Well...since you both know much more about the website than I do, that's unintentionally hypocritical of you and you obviously read it a lot more than I do.
its an Alex jones website. I dont know why you are being defensive, it's not a slight on you, but I would be astounded if you frequented an Alex jones media outlet. it'd be like finding out you get medical advice from Kevin Trudeau.
The first thing I see on that article is "Alex Jones' PRISON PLANET, the truth will set you free" telling you who the author of the website is and that it's obviously a website that claims the truth, whatever that is, will set people free.
Even if you don't know who Alex Jones is, which I doubt, "the truth will set you free" is not a phrase on credible websites, it's usually by religious websites or conspiracy theorist websites.
Another thing is Alex Jones is the host of a radio show syndicated by the Genesis Communication Network on over 60 AM and FM radio stations across the United States. It might have even been the very show you listened to, but that's just me reaching for straws.
If you really don't know, he's a conspiracy theorist, religious fanatic, a right wing extremists and also a huge supporter of Congressman Dr. Ron Paul.
And Googling Paul Joseph Watson will show him as a conspiracy theorist.
And me and in haven't done anything hypocritical, I just stated that you read prisonplanet.com, because, well either you do or you posted that article without reading it. Either way, you state you thought it was awesome, and then later "not as awesome".
I've never read anything from prisonplanet.com other than that one phrase stated above. I've listened to some of Alex Jones' radio shows in the past, and have also watched films from prisonplanet.com that were first posted on Google. From these, I know not to trust prisonplanet.com
What, you don't think I would be a little defensive with such condescending statements from you and XYZ?
I have no idea who the **** Alex Jones is.
Regardless, I do see that prisonplanet claimed "the supreme court" and it was just a district or circuit court.
Why would I be shocked to see the first google search result for the recent ruling about being able to video tape police on a website called "prison planet"? It makes perfect sense that a website that has a name that looks like it is dedicated to things pertaining to prisons would cover the case I was looking for.
But I guess that logic didn't come to you when considering it.
I don't know every website. I have no idea who the **** Alex Jones is, either.
I did not see "the truth will set you free" on the website. Regardless, it's not something I really need to care about because:
1. I had already heard the news story from our public radio...a fairly credible news source.
2. When it comes to news, "The Truth Will Set You Free" is no different in meaning to me than phrases like, "Fair and Balanced", "Coverage You Can Count On", "Lean Forward", "The World Leaders in News", and "The Best Political Team on Television." I mean...how many times have we heard "the truth will set you free" on national news programs like Fox News?
3. I never read that other stuff on the website. When I found the link, get this...I read the article. Nothing else. That's a very human (I am not sayng "we're human and make mistakes", I'm referring to how humans process and use information) and normal thing to do.
4. You are the last person that should ever criticize someone about conspiracy theories.
I can google search Alex Jones, too.
That doesn't mean that I know who he is. And, no, he doesn't show up on NPR, as far as I was aware.
The name sounds familiar, but I have no idea what he looks like, sounds like, or what he supports.
Obviously he's considered "bad" but you enlightened people.
I like that he supports Ron Paul.
K.
Indirectly hypocritical by your statements is not being directly hypocritical. That's quite obvious.
You seem to know loads more about him than I do, know loads more about that website...making your criticism hollow and hypocritical.
It's like smoking cigarettes and then screaming at someone for smoking them. "THOSE ARE SO BAD FOR YOU!"
So why are you smoking what Alex Jones is putting down?
Research?
So how in the world did you know about prisonplanet.com and the connection to Alex Jones?
I'm not new to the internet. So why is prisonplanet a new site for me and not you? Is it possible that your internet interests delve much closer to conspiratorial works than mine? (Obviously).
Alright, dadude, please stop turning this thread into something it is not. They were entitled to make a one-off comment about the validity of your source; let's keep it on-topic now.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
KMC Community Forums
Sep 3rd, 2011 05:26 AM
