The disputed law makes it illegal to knowingly film police officers 8 feet or closer if the officer tells the person to stop:
A federal judge on Friday blocked enforcement of a new Arizona law restricting how the public and journalists can film police, agreeing with the American Civil Liberties Union and multiple media organizations who argued it violated the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge John J. Tuchi issued a preliminary injunction that stops the law from being enforced when it is set to take effect on Sept. 24. The quick decision came after Republican Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the prosecutor and sheriff's office in Maricopa County told the judge they did not plan to defend the law. They were named as defendants in the lawsuit filed last month.
[...] KM Bell, an ACLU attorney who lobbied against the bill at the Legislature and was in court Friday, said they were pleased the judge acted quickly.
"We are extremely gratified that Arizonans will not have their constitutional rights infringed and their ability to record the police criminalized by this law," Bell said.
Previously: Arizona Makes It Illegal for Bystanders to Record Cops at Close Range
Related Stories
Critics say the law gives police too much discretion:
The same week that a federal judge sentenced ex-cop Derek Chauvin to more prison time for killing George Floyd, Arizona passed a law making it harder to record police by limiting how close bystanders can be while recording specified law enforcement activity. Chauvin was convicted in part because a recording showing his attack on Floyd at close proximity went viral. It was filmed by a teenager named Darnella Frazier while she was standing "a few feet away."
The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off, they risk being charged with a misdemeanor and incurring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or probation of up to a year.
Sponsored by Republican state representative John Kavanagh, the law known as H.B. 2319 makes it illegal to record police at close range. In a USA Today op-ed, Kavanagh said it is important to leave this buffer for police to protect law enforcement from being assaulted by unruly bystanders. He said "there's no reason" to come closer and predicted tragic outcomes for those who do, saying, "Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary, and unsafe, and should be made illegal."
Some exceptions: a person being questioned, arrested or otherwise handled by police can record, "as long as it doesn't interfere with police actions." The same exception extends to anyone recording while in a vehicle involved in a police stop. If you're inside an enclosed structure on private property you also have an exception. The caveats "unless law enforcement determines that the person is interfering" or "it is not safe" for them to be in the area potentially gives police a lot of discretion over who can record and when.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2022, @09:54PM
just go by like you're fighting... like you're fighting [youtube.com]!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday September 13 2022, @11:42PM
Good.
One more small victory for justice and accountability - and a rather important one at that. I've got to say it's been really heartening seeing the increasing recognition and push back against police abuse of authority the last few years. It wasn't that long ago that it was only the "lunatic fringe" and "probable criminals" that called them out publicly, while most people either held their tongue, or actually believed the cops were the good guys.
I feel for the cops that got into the job because they actually wanted to help people - but the pressure against them has been immense, and as the saying goes: if you have one bad cop and nine more who cover for them, then you have ten bad cops.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday September 14 2022, @12:36AM (3 children)
Multiple federal courts, as well as the Supreme Court have ruled that citizens may take video of anything in a public place. They've ruled repeatedly that cops don't enjoy any special status, in regards to being recorded in public places. That "close range" nonsense was wide open for abuse. A cop could easily decide that 1/4 miles is "close range" and confiscate your camera, beat you half to death, arrest you, and you have no recourse.
OK, so my 1/4 mile is a loooooong way from the 8 feet under discussion, but still, same thing. Unless you have a tape measure at hand you can't establish a precise 8 foot perimeter, and neither can the cop. He can arbitrarily decide that you have infringed his 8 foot personal space, while you are actually 24 feet away. Too much room for abuse.
Meanwhile - a cop really does need a little bit of room to work in, as do any other emergency personnel. That's why the make police tape. Accident scene, murder scene, whatever, it's the cop's duty to establish a perimeter that contains all of the evidence and suspected evidence, and TAPE IT OFF. Don't cross the police line and there should be no problem. Cross that line, and you're obstructing an investigation. Camera or no camera, it doesn't matter, so there never was a need for this law.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by weirsbaski on Wednesday September 14 2022, @01:06AM
8 feet is enough that you couldn't film a traffic-stop from within the vehicle. Don't know if that was the goal, or just a happy coincidence.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday September 14 2022, @02:09AM
>so there never was a need for this law.
Only if you for some reason believe that the publicly stated goal was the actual reason for creating the law.
But it seems pretty obvious that the actual motive for the law was to make filming cops functionally illegal, restoring their freedom to function as government-sponsored goons without fear of accountability. Its good for the goons. It's good for the authorities they answer to. The only losers are a bunch of us peasants whining about our "rights".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 14 2022, @02:17AM
They arguably have less than special status when they're on duty: Your employer is generally allowed to look in on you to find out what you're up to. The public is the cop's employer, so, logically, they can look in on the cops to see what they're up to most of the time.
And we also have to make no mistake about this: The law, as written, existed for the purpose of helping criminal cops get away with their crimes.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2022, @02:09AM (2 children)
Good thing nobody uses film anymore... Carry on recording.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2022, @03:38AM
Beat eyeborgs on site!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 14 2022, @10:57AM
"The traditional metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) structure is obtained by growing a layer of silicon dioxide (SiO2) on top of a silicon substrate, commonly by thermal oxidation and depositing a layer of metal or polycrystalline silicon (the latter is commonly used)."
Semiconductors are nothing but films.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 14 2022, @02:07PM (8 children)
I am really starting to wonder how much our rights are worth when governments keep eroding them. We have very clear rights enumerated in the Constitution, and yet the government (all levels) keeps abrogating them with no consequences. When a regular citizen commits a crime, he goes to jail. When the government violates, say, every American's 4th Amendment rights (the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure) with mass surveillance, none of those people involved goes to jail.
In this case, the Supreme Court said you can record anything in public. That's a pretty clear decision. Yet, Arizona passes this law that says you can't record police activity if "you're too close." Under the American system, the Supreme Court's decisions count for all Americans throughout the country, but here we have a state replaying the nullification game that Southern states played during the Civil Rights movement to fight desegregation. (Same thing, actually, with the recent decision on the 2nd Amendment, a.k.a. "the right to keep and bear arms"--states like New York and California are doubling down on taking away Americans' express 2nd Amendment rights).
Theoretically, politicians and bureaucrats who act to deny Americans their rights would be removed from office, but we all know that they never are and in fact most often get promoted for their crimes. Theoretically, voting in one party vs. another would punish those who deny our rights, but we all are well aware that both parties are on the same team, and it's not the team the rest of us are on.
So, how much are our rights really worth when those in government keep taking them away with no consequences?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2022, @02:45PM (3 children)
> I am really starting to wonder how much our rights are worth when governments keep eroding them
Look a bit fucking closer dude. One side is eroding your rights, one side wants more state violence, one side wants to take away support and leave you vulnerable to power. If you can't see it as the ongoing struggle of owner class vs worker class, then God help you innocent babe.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2022, @02:51PM (2 children)
The government is in fact our (The People's) defense against power. Those wanting "small government" and who damage government when they get in charge are the same ones who want to control every part of your life. Mind your manners, peasant. Don't speak back, peasant. Enjoy work camp, peasant. Arbeit Macht Motherfucking Fries.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2022, @09:04PM (1 child)
While I agree with much of your statement, I do have to take issue with this:
That's just not true. Fry cooks make fries. While doing the work of a fry cook is working, not all work results in fries.
I think what you meant was Arbeit Macht Frei [wikipedia.org].
Yes, there is some humor meant here, but as the old saw goes, "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right."
So, FTFY.
(Score: 1) by Retian on Friday September 16 2022, @03:08PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you don't get invited to many parties.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 14 2022, @03:43PM (3 children)
Unfortunately, I think the only resolution is for the voters to hold these bad actors responsible but that requires an educated voter base who actually understand how our government works in the first place.
And also unfortunately, less than half of us can even name all three branches of our government. [thehill.com]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 14 2022, @03:45PM (1 child)
Good lord that article is fucking depressing!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2022, @06:21PM
I bet they could name all the descendants of Adam tho, praise the Lord!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 14 2022, @09:10PM
Just yesterday (13 September 2022) there was a discussion on this topic on Washington Journal [c-span.org] (likely in response to the article you linked) with Kathleen Hall Jamison [wikipedia.org].
It's worth a watch, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Disagree) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday September 14 2022, @04:31PM (2 children)
A policeman trying to restrain a violently resisting felon needs at least 8 feet separation to protect himself from hostile bystanders. No bystander needs to be within 8 feet to effectively document police behavior.
A previous poster points out that the law would make it impossible for a car passenger to record a traffic stop. The law should be adjusted to account for cramped situations.
Actually, the filming aspect is entirely superfluous. Police need to be able to tell people to "back off" and make it stick.
Videographers tend to push too close, figuring their machinery gives them some right to get in other people's way. They need to realize that this notion is untrue.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 14 2022, @09:13PM (1 child)
Your point seems somewhat superfluous, as obstruction/interfering with police is already a crime in most places.
As such, you don't need a law restricting the recording of police to address the issue you cite.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 20 2022, @02:38PM
Arresting somebody for only violating *one* law? Pah! We need at least three!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"