0
0

[–] redlegmike ago 

Well free speech is free speech. Free recording of everything you or I do anywhere by anyone . . .that is something else, isnt it?

Is it free speech for Amazon Alexa to record anything in your home. Is it free speech for anyone to drone record your activities. I dont know - this seems to become Orwellian at some point. That is what we are talking about right - recording? Not speech?

There is a right place for recording like lawful police action (where necessary sanctioned by courts). But are facing a bigger question. If I have drones with advanced surveillance equipment, is it ok for me to follow and record your every action (maybe even phone conversations)? This is the new norm with protestors throwing up cell phones at every altercation, right? Why not a persistent drone? What is the difference?

0
0

[–] Somecowsspeakhuman ago 

This is where I have to throw up my hands too. I want myself and my daughters to be able to sunbathe on our property, well removed from any public vantage point, without worrying about our neighbor flying a drone 5 km in to get some sweet internet karma point pictures.

In the public sector, I think many people have the expectation of polite ignoring. You see someone, you acknowledge their existence, and then you ignore what they're doing. No following them around all creepy like.

0
2

[–] antiliberalsociety 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

That does NOT mean you have a right to interfere with Jamal's arrest by shoving a cell phone in the cops face in protest, shouting obscenities about racism.

0
3

[–] Onlio 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Just as long as it's fine for them to record everyone else. During the inauguration, the police were ordered to turn off their cameras, while everyone could record them.

0
0

[–] Mathurin1911 ago 

Police at the Inauguration followed standard procedure for them, which was not to surveil the peaceful protest electronically. If shit goes down, or a legitimate contact is made, I want them to record, but making a record of a protest is creepy and authoritarian.

0
5

[–] Jixijenga 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Frankly I cannot imagine why the fuck they would even get that order, it's just insane. Body cameras do a service to everyone except criminals.

EDIT: Actually during mass-attendance events (including riots) I would be in favor of it being legally required for the body cam footage to be open to the public.

0
1

[–] Mathurin1911 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Frankly I cannot imagine why the fuck they would even get that order, it's just insane. Body cameras do a service to everyone except criminals.

Because surveilling crowds of peaceful protesters is something an oppressive government does. If shit gets rowdy, record away, until then it is a form of intimidation of the right to protest.

0
8

[–] Drenki 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

This is another symptom of how fucked up our country is. This is common sense - recording a public official, in a public place executing a public duty. As long as there's no interference, there's no problem. So why did it have to go to the 5th circuit? Colossal and shameful waste of resources.

Let's put bodycams on all our politicians!

0
1

[–] Mathurin1911 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

It had to go to the courts because the police used eavesdropping and generic laws to take away civilian cameras in order to preserve their own ability to lie without recourse. See, being recorded is a loss of power, and police love to believe they have all of the power in any given situation, anything that takes power away from them must be disposed of.

This wouldnt be an issue if we had proper policing of our police. I dont hate the police, I hate the assholes, and I hate the way the police band around the assholes when they are caught being assholes. I also hate BLM btw, those idiots have hurt the cause of police reform more than they can possibly know.

0
1

[–] Drenki 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I agree with most of what you wrote, but still no reason for the lowest level judge to even consider the case.