Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 17 2018, @10:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the big-cheeky-bugger.-Hey!-It's-got-a-camera! dept.

The Boston Globe has a story out about a ruling in US District court this week that narrows the scope of a 50-year old Massachusetts law that restricted recording of police and other government officials.

The law, and similar ones still in effect in 10 other states, was implemented long before the advent of now ubiquitous cell phones. It and similar laws criminalized recordings made of police and public officials in public even in performance of their duties, as felonies and have caught large numbers of individuals, activists, and journalists doing the same thing they always do in their net. (Most states are covered already by rulings which find such recording legal on first amendment grounds.)

But a ruling issued Monday by US District Court Judge Patti Saris found, "On the core constitutional issue, the Court holds that secret audio recording of government officials, including law enforcement officials, performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." And so, she added, the law "is unconstitutional in those circumstances."

The attorney general's office is reviewing the decision so challenge or appeal may still be forthcoming. However, as the Globe notes

this is one law whose time has come and gone. Challenges to the law go back to at least 2001, when a spirited dissent in a case then before the Supreme Judicial Court insisted that the "legislative intent" was to regulate government surveillance, not that of private citizens trying to monitor police conduct in a public place.

This case was clearly a win for greater transparency — and that's all to the good. It should be allowed to stand.

More information on recording public officials is available here and here.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Maybe now we can, just a little bit more, in Massachusetts.

Good one Skippy.

Previously: Right to Record Police Established in U.S. Fifth Circuit
Right to Record Police Established in U.S. Third Circuit

Related: New Bill in Colorado Would Protect the Right to Record Police
PINAC Correspondent Found Guilty of Trespassing on Public Road
China Says it's OK for Members of the Public to Record the Police


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday December 17 2018, @12:18PM (10 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday December 17 2018, @12:18PM (#775358) Journal

    We've seen this right established/affirmed in the Fifth and Third circuits lately. Maybe more if I wasn't paying attention.

    Now this did exist in the First Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island) due to Glik v. Cunniffe [wikipedia.org], but only for "open recording". Now it's cool if they don't even see your camera.

    Go ahead, appeal it. Let's get the right to record police established nationwide.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MrGuy on Monday December 17 2018, @01:52PM (9 children)

      by MrGuy (1007) on Monday December 17 2018, @01:52PM (#775379)

      "Go ahead and appeal it!" is a great idea if you're confident in a win.

      The Supreme Court currently has a conservative majority, which has tended to be less willing to be expansive of Bill of Rights issues beyond things mentioned in the text and/or existing Supreme Court precedent, and b.) even when it didn't, the modern Supreme Court is extremely "pro police." For example, recent jurisprudence on the notion of "qualified immunity" for police officers doing illegal things in performance of their duties has strongly favored protecting the police. It's not all bad - freedom of speech protections have NOT eroded despite frequent attacks, so the first amendment is alive and well.

      This issue somewhat splits those two recent trends, and it's not entirely clear (to me at least) which side the high court would come down on.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Monday December 17 2018, @02:43PM (6 children)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday December 17 2018, @02:43PM (#775396) Journal

        Maybe, but I don't think so.

        There's a lot of precedent to ignore. To my knowledge, all of the district courts that have looked at this issue, with the exception of the Eighth Circuit [krcgtv.com], have sided with the right to record. And there are many cases of police misconduct being captured by people with cameras.

        SCOTUS conservatives aren't uniformly "evil" or anti-rights. The issue is also not as political as others they will decide on. It's a safe and sane interpretation of the First Amendment.

        Finally, SCOTUS probably isn't going to become more liberal anytime soon. The two oldest members are liberal-leaning, and then there's a 10-year age gap between Breyer and Thomas. Best case scenario, the court's political leaning remains exactly the same for the next 10-20 years. Worst case scenario, it gradually becomes more conservative. Waiting isn't going to help.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday December 17 2018, @03:42PM (5 children)

          by fyngyrz (6567) on Monday December 17 2018, @03:42PM (#775421) Journal

          Best case scenario, the court's political leaning remains exactly the same for the next 10-20 years all the current members of the court are forcibly retired and replaced by legislative fiat during an all-liberal phase of congress and the executive.

          Considering what a lousy job SCOTUS has been doing, I think it'd be just the thing for them get a dose of their own medicine. I do think it's possible, too — there's been some pretty serious talk about term limits for them, for instance.

          As it stands, they've become a force for the very worst kind of cultural inertia.

          IMHO, of course.

          --
          Some drink from the fountain of knowledge. Others gargle.

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday December 17 2018, @08:25PM (2 children)

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday December 17 2018, @08:25PM (#775537)

            Somebody's found a new tag!

            I like it. [youtube.com]

            • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday December 17 2018, @08:51PM (1 child)

              by fyngyrz (6567) on Monday December 17 2018, @08:51PM (#775550) Journal

              Somebody's found a new tag!

              That's right. [soylentnews.org]

              --
              Jst Sy N to Lssy Cmprssn.

              • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday December 17 2018, @09:18PM

                by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday December 17 2018, @09:18PM (#775564)

                +1 Informative

                ...
                +1 Informative

                ...
                +1 Informative

                +1 Informative

                Bugger, it's stopped working.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NewNic on Tuesday December 18 2018, @12:32AM (1 child)

            by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday December 18 2018, @12:32AM (#775659) Journal

            there's been some pretty serious talk about term limits for them, for instance.

            The only way that could be forced is a constitutional amendment, so it's not going to happen.

            An appointing President could demand that a nominee furnished a future-dated resignation letter before being nominated, but:
            1. That's potentially providing a weapon to a successor from a different party and
            2. The Supreme Court might decide that such letters are null and void. If the Supreme Court were to make such a decision, there is no way to appeal that.

            So, term limits for Supreme Court Justices: any talk of that is just a waste of time. It's not going to happen.

            --
            lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
            • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 18 2018, @03:43PM

              by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday December 18 2018, @03:43PM (#775863) Journal

              Term limits for SCOTUS will happen if it becomes clear that anti-aging could make them functionally immortal.

              It won't happen within the next 20 years or so, so it won't be soon enough to turn a conservative SCOTUS into a liberal one in the near term. I could also imagine that the amendment would specify a 30 or 40 year limit but grandfather in existing justices up to 60 years or something like that, just to make the transition smoother.

              It will be pretty clear that we don't want someone being appointed to SCOTUS at age 50 and remaining there until they're age 150. We just aren't at the point yet where that's possible and people realize that it's a potential problem.

              --
              [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @03:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @03:20PM (#775409)

        "Go ahead and appeal it!" is a great idea if you're confident in a win.

        ... And you are rich.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Monday December 17 2018, @04:11PM

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Monday December 17 2018, @04:11PM (#775431) Journal

        ...freedom of speech protections have NOT eroded despite frequent attacks

        I think it's more accurate to say they have not eroded much further. Some free speech erosion-related issues just off the top of my head:

        There are also some new concerns that have arisen as social networks (for example, Facebook) take on the role of town squares; as the social networks are presently treated as purely private enterprises, they have the power and authority to control speech in their own venues. They can, and do, prevent people from taking part based on various criteria of their own. The ultimate result of this is effectively a muzzling of political speech as well as other speech. I think the question of how social networks should be treated with regard to speech and membership is an important one, although quite a thorny one.

        For my part, I don't buy any argument that uses the idea that "no one should ever read, hear, or see these ideas and/or these people" as in any way a point in favor of censorship.

        To somewhat mangle an oft-quoted maxim: "Repression. I know it when I see it." Also: Sweeping the trash under the bed just means you don't know what's festering under there.

        --
        Don't anthropomorphize my t-shirt.
        It hates that.

  • (Score: 5, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday December 17 2018, @12:25PM (1 child)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday December 17 2018, @12:25PM (#775359) Homepage Journal

    If they're not doing anything wrong, they've got nothing to hide.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @06:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18 2018, @06:51PM (#775964)

      I dunno, I might get on board with some Weihnachtsgans.

(1)