?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Dec. 5th, 2011 @ 04:15 pm People, it is time to kick up a HELL of a fuss.
About this Entry
pestering
From:galadrion
Date:December 5th, 2011 09:49 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Hm... So they are saying that recording an event in a public venue is illegal? Right, it's getting closer to time for another revolution.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 5th, 2011 10:05 pm (UTC)

Good luck with that.

(Permanent Link)
This is the next logical step after the "1st Amendment zones". First restrict people's speech and actions, then outlaw them entirely. The average policeman/woman is also (with some legitimacy) getting sick

As for another revolution...unless you can rally the majority of the military behind you, you'd better hope the Lord himself is backing your movement or you're toast on two legs. The differences between the British armed forces and ours is about like those between a squadron of Z-95 Headhunters and a Super Star Destroyer.
[User Picture Icon]
From:nefaria
Date:December 6th, 2011 12:43 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Just a taste of what's coming as our government gets bigger and our civil rights get smaller.
[User Picture Icon]
From:delphshadow
Date:December 6th, 2011 03:29 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
One thing I'm mildly curious about: how many states have laws against recording ordinary citizens without their consent? Because if states had those laws, I could almost see tacking on a "you're not allowed to record the police without their consent" because the police are, after all, citizens. In the absence of that, however, this seems unjust to an extreme.

Granted, I actually understand and sympathize with the motive of the laws even if I don't have any sympathy for the laws themselves. There is effectively no recourse available to a police officer whose on-tape conduct is edited to turn them into a bad guy and then published to the point that it becomes impossible to correct. Sterling example of this is the famous videotape of the police taking swings at Rodney King: it wasn't until much later that we started learning that very important facts were conveniently edited out of the tape and this fact is still not widely-known even well over a decade later. Such dishonesty and manipulation provably causes massive disturbances (the 1992 LA riots) and the destruction of individuals... which, I believe, is why these laws are even given a hearing, much less passed.
[User Picture Icon]
From:kire_duhai
Date:December 6th, 2011 04:00 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Courts are supposed to take into account the limitations of evidence; there's a margin of error regardless of what media is used. But what is the most valued testimony in courts today? The eyewitness. *Despite* the fact that they're among the most unreliable types of testimony available. Why? Because it's emotive. And so are videos, especially skillfully edited ones.

However, we shouldn't try to balance the shortcomings of our courts by making laws to make up for their incompetence.

Despite what most people think, privacy is not a right. It's a privilege. If you don't want to be embarrassed by recordings of you, don't do embarrassing things that might be recorded. And if they edit innocent footage to make it look damning, they should be charged with perjury the same as anyone who lies in a normal manner.

I used video recording in court myself, and I'm willing to bet it had a lot to do with why I was acquitted. Recordings are invaluable tools for finding truth. We shouldn't ban them from use in courts just because courts are failing to see their limitations; that they can be manipulated into lies just like anything else. That just answers laziness with more laziness.

That said, I don't think these laws were made to prevent abuse of video recordings anyway. They were made to protect public officials from citizens, when it's supposed to go the other way 'round.

-Kire Du'Hai
[User Picture Icon]
From:sledgomatic
Date:December 6th, 2011 08:17 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
As I recall, Ralph, you posted a video sometime back of an officer explaining that a citizen should, ideally, never talk to the police directly. And especially never divulge information except through a filter of legal representation.

Heck'd if I can find it...
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 6th, 2011 05:57 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
You probably want something like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
[User Picture Icon]
From:cardaxiro
Date:December 7th, 2011 12:31 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Actually, I remember that video, too; it was a law professor making the argument that by talking to the police without legal representation, you're effectively voiding your Fifth Amendment right, because missing even minor details can make you look guilty, whether you are or not.

Here's a direct link to the first half of the lecture in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 6th, 2011 02:55 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Can't watch the video at work, but I believe I found a print copy of it on the web.

One, this is an old case, the Circuit Court Judge threw it out on it's ear in late September.

Two, the cops didn't bring the charges, it was done by one pissed off judge. The victim had a long running dispute, he worked on cars in his driveway, and was getting cited with 'eyesore' ordinance violations, which he challenged. This was set off when he was told there would be no official court transcript he brought a tape recorder for his own record of the proceedings. The judge hit the roof when she found out (report doesn't give her name, but does use the female pronouns) accused him of 'violating her privacy' and got him slapped with an easedropping charge that carried a 15 year maximum, and added four more when she found he recorded his interactions with the cops.

So sanity eventually prevailed, and it wasn't the cops this time folks. Sounds like a single powermad judge who had the ear of an ADA.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:December 10th, 2011 12:05 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Whether judge or police is irrelevant to the fact that the law in question is what enabled this violation of civil rights.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 10th, 2011 06:43 pm (UTC)

Allison case

(Permanent Link)
You're late to the party, folks. Allison's charges were dismissed back in September by Judge Frankland, who said the Illinois eavesdropping statute is unconstitutional. No word yet on whether the State's Attorney will appeal. They may, and the Illinois Attorney General may involve herself because it's a state law in question.

Point of fact, the charges against Mr. Allison were for the audio recordings he made; there is no mention of videotaping in the case file. I got this info from a quick search for "Michael Allison, Robinson, IL" and followed a couple of links. If you do the same search, you can easily find information on the case.

I agree the law needs to be changed, but until it is, people in Illinois who record audio without consent are going to be charged now and then, and it's going to take a lot of time and money to keep them from going to jail and paying fines or court costs.
[User Picture Icon]
From:caddan
Date:December 12th, 2011 02:00 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Ok, that one has been resolved.....but just like in whack-a-mole, we have a new issue...

http://www.rr.com/tv/topic/article/rr/55255142/57451182/Backlash_for_Lowes_as_ads_pulled_from_Muslim_show

"Calling the Lowe's decision "un-American" and "naked religious bigotry," Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, told The Associated Press he would also consider legislative action if Lowe's doesn't apologize to Muslims and reinstate its ads."
[User Picture Icon]
From:sledgomatic
Date:December 12th, 2011 08:55 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"Sen. Lieu goes on to laud the show's message of peace, citing the Islamic world's thousand-year history of faithful adherence to treaties and never using peace-time as a ruse to stab supposed allies in the back."
From:(Anonymous)
Date:December 13th, 2011 08:34 pm (UTC)

Something we agree on.

(Permanent Link)
So Michael Allison's case was dismissed by a judge who acted from the bench and overrode the law on the constitutional grounds. Judge Frankland's ruling may have been appealed; I haven't seen any news on this since the case was dropped back in mid September.

This is a case that alarms people who believe in individuals, both on the left and on the right. Occupy Wall Street boards keep watching and acting about police who try to shut down the journalists, cover badge numbers in tape, and otherwise try to hide. Personally, I believe police in riot gear should all have their badge numbers as prominent as runners' numbers in marathons. If they do well, people can notice and praise them. It encourages good behavior.

The hard hurdle is personal. Would you join with people you don't agree, don't believe, and don't like to solve this one issue? Would you unite, on this one issue, with the Occupy Wall Street crowd or the university professor crowd? Politics is the hard choice of working together on issues you agree on while putting aside the others for another day.

Would you do it?
[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:December 13th, 2011 10:28 pm (UTC)

Re: Something we agree on.

(Permanent Link)
You don't yoke an ox with an ass.


I do not have to "join" or "work with" someone to whom I am radically and diametrically opposed, just for the sake of one issue. In fact it's a formula for failure; for all that we agree on the problem, they will invariably differ with me on the solution.



The purpose of our system of governance is to enable people to place pressure on the ruling powers WITHOUT having to gang up into one faceless, voiceless, and inevitably brainless mob. Let the OWSers have their tantrum on their own; we of the mature class will stand over here and raise our own measure, undiluted by their erratic lunacy.