This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
Sort: Top
[–] Drenki 0 points 8 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!
[–] Mathurin1911 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] Drenki 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] Onlio 0 points 3 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.
[–] Jixijenga 0 points 5 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.
[–] Mathurin1911 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
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.
[–] 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.
[–] antiliberalsociety 0 points 2 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.
[–] 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?
[–] 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.