The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 26, 2012, 01:02 PM   #1
sigcurious
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.
sigcurious is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 01:09 PM   #2
Woody55
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.
Woody55 is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 01:19 PM   #3
sigcurious
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.
sigcurious is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 06:55 PM   #4
Woody55
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.
Woody55 is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 07:19 PM   #5
sigcurious
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.
sigcurious is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 08:45 PM   #6
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 371
Quote:
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.
The law has been in effect for years. It's just recently been ruled unconstitutional.
Davey is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 09:31 PM   #7
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Ahh good point, I misspoke.
sigcurious is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 09:43 PM   #8
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
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
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old November 27, 2012, 09:25 PM   #9
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 227
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.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old November 28, 2012, 12:20 AM   #10
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,328
Quoting Woody:

Quote:
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.
You don't get it yet. The right to record is linked to your first amendment PRESS rights - your right to gather info before disseminating it.

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
Jim March is offline  
Old November 28, 2012, 03:02 PM   #11
Woody55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
Jim,

Quote:
You don't get it yet.
That's what I said Jim.

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.
Woody55 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08159 seconds with 9 queries