The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Monday, February 29, 2016

A Dangerous New Anti-First Amendment Ruling …


Up until last week, every American citizen had the right to photograph or film law enforcement officers as they pleased. Doing so was deemed to be “expressive conduct” – or free speech expressly permitted under the First Amendment.

Technically this right still exists, although a recent federal court ruling has thrown it into some confusion … and created a flood of headlines questioning its validity.

U.S. district court judge Mark Kearney of Philadelphia – an appointee of U.S. president Barack Obama – ruled last week that the citizens may not photograph or film police absent some “expressive purpose such as challenging police actions.”



KBinLA said...

Our justice system just keeps getting more and more traitorous. For a judge to even allow this sort of nonsense into their court is a miscarriage of justice in itself. But, to rule favorably against the Constitution is nothing short of the actions of a traitor. Iustitia must have put down her scales and sword, torn off her blindfold and asked, "WTF?"

lmclain said...

We, the people, are told by the police and by the government that "We, the people" have no expectation of privacy and NO protection against being filmed or photographed while we are in "public".
Now they say there are certain "classes" of people who have "special" rights.
And it MUST alarm some of you that, in cases of privacy and equality under law, courts take the side of the GOVERNMENT instead of the citizens!
Now, according to them, we are not allowed to photograph the people who do their best to photograph us several times a day, trick our cell phones into calling the "police tower", stop/search/confiscate WITHOUT WARRANTS, and did I mention photographing US?
There ARE two sets of laws now in this country --- one for the serfs and one for the Masters. And the line is being drawn by the people who are supposed to PROTECT liberty and freedom, not constrict it and expand what was INTENDED to be "limited government".
Keep cheering.

Anonymous said...

One of the major issues is audio. No security cameras have audio and there is a reason why. While you expect to be seen in a public place you are not always expected to have your conversation recorded.

lmclain said...

Not too many innocent people expect to be calling the police tower when calling their wife, either. You know, that "audio" the police say they want to "protect"???
But our Gestapo has decided that your innocence, your 4TH Amendment rights, or your desire to keep your "audio" private has no protection.
Now, "audio" is a problem? Their concern is underwhelming.
Orwell would be impressed with the logic.
Keep cheering.