|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 26, 2012, 01:02 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Supreme Court Not to Hear Recording Case from IL
Link
The current direction of the law/case in IL is positive, in that the law is barred from being enforced at the moment and police are not protected from unknowingly being audio recorded during the course of their duties. It also seems that they're attempting to redraft the law to clarify/allow non-consensual recording of police during their duties, while retaining the rest. The concern, to me, being that this case still has to go through the lower courts and the IL state representatives still need to finalize a new version. Here's to hoping for a further preservation of our liberties. |
November 26, 2012, 01:09 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
I like the direction of the result, but I'm not sure I understand how this becomes a free speech or privacy issue for the non-police officer.
|
November 26, 2012, 01:19 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
It becomes a 1st amendment issue for people interacting with the police who wish to record the encounter or bystanders who wish to record a police action. Had the law gone into effect as currently drafted it would be a felony to record a police officer on audio during the course of their duties without their consent.
|
November 26, 2012, 06:55 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
I understand what you are saying, but it isn't your speech the government is restricting. It's your recording of the officer's speech.
|
November 26, 2012, 07:19 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
I do not recall at what point it was defined/regarded as protected, but photography and silent video are protected under the first amendment via freedom of speech. Audio recording has had no defined protection under the 1st amendment. This case will hopefully help define audio recording in a positive(IMO) manner as protected also.
|
November 26, 2012, 08:45 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Quote:
|
|
November 26, 2012, 09:31 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Ahh good point, I misspoke.
|
November 26, 2012, 09:43 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
I agree completely with one party consent in police officer/state official interactions.
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
November 27, 2012, 09:25 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
The usual argument against these laws--in my view the correct reasoning--is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in acts occurring in public; it is no more a crime to record what is happening than to listen or view it as it occurs. There is no 'eavesdropping' on public speech. Phone conversations, by contrast, do bear a reasonable expectation that the conversation will not be overheard by others.
|
November 28, 2012, 12:20 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Quoting Woody:
Quote:
See, the right to a free press refers to a TECHNOLOGY, not a job description. So your use of "press technologies" is fully protected even if you're not a pro journalist - hence you have a right to own and use the computer you post here with, and a camera with which to gather info you disseminate on forums like this. There are police agencies such as the NYPD who are still claiming a right to decide who "the press" is. Such positions are also in a state of collapse and the switch is fully "on" in the courts to reading the 1st Amendment "freedom of the press" as a technology as opposed to a job description. For a more detailed look: http://www.pennumbra.com/issues/pdfs/160-2/Volokh.pdf
__________________
Jim March |
|
November 28, 2012, 03:02 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
Jim,
Quote:
From the 7th Circuit opinion: "The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording. The right to publish or broadcast an audio or audiovisual recording would be insecure, or largely ineffective, if the antecedent act of making the recording is wholly unprotected, as the State’s Attorney insists." Pages 23-24. http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/up...rez_ruling.pdf. It isn't strictly a freedom of the press issue. But I "get it" now. |
|
|
|