Shouldn't laws like this be ruled unconstitutional?
06-28-2010, 07:11 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2006 Accent
Shouldn't laws like this be ruled unconstitutional?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/po...llphone_videos/
This really doesnt make any sense to me. What do the police have to hide? If the police do something really bad and they get filmed in the act, its a bad thing. But if a regular citizen goes out and does something really bad and they get filmed, its ok? Im just really confused over all of this.
QUOTE
Police cuff citizens for videotaping arrests
Film a cop, go to jail
Since the police beating of motorist Rodney King in 1991, men in blue have looked warily at the civilian videotaping of arrests and other police activities. Some cops are so opposed to the practice, they've begun arresting the amateur videographers and charging them criminally.
According to this article published by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, police in Boston and Pennsylvania have regularly arrested otherwise law-abiding citizens who videotape cops as they go about performing arrests on public streets. The charge: illegal electronic surveillance.
"The police apparently do not want witnesses to what they do in public," Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, was quoted as saying.
Like 11 other states, Massachusetts is a two-party consent state, meaning that all parties to a conversation must agree to be recorded on telephones or other audio devices. Police in Boston and elsewhere have used the law to arrest videographers who use cameras with audio recording capabilities.
With the ubiquity of video cameras, just about every facet of public life - from fights on public transit to executions of megalomaniac world leaders - is regularly captured on tape. But if certain police get their way, the sole exception to that rule will be reserved for actions they carry out that they'd prefer remain secret.
Film a cop, go to jail
Since the police beating of motorist Rodney King in 1991, men in blue have looked warily at the civilian videotaping of arrests and other police activities. Some cops are so opposed to the practice, they've begun arresting the amateur videographers and charging them criminally.
According to this article published by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, police in Boston and Pennsylvania have regularly arrested otherwise law-abiding citizens who videotape cops as they go about performing arrests on public streets. The charge: illegal electronic surveillance.
"The police apparently do not want witnesses to what they do in public," Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, was quoted as saying.
Like 11 other states, Massachusetts is a two-party consent state, meaning that all parties to a conversation must agree to be recorded on telephones or other audio devices. Police in Boston and elsewhere have used the law to arrest videographers who use cameras with audio recording capabilities.
With the ubiquity of video cameras, just about every facet of public life - from fights on public transit to executions of megalomaniac world leaders - is regularly captured on tape. But if certain police get their way, the sole exception to that rule will be reserved for actions they carry out that they'd prefer remain secret.
This really doesnt make any sense to me. What do the police have to hide? If the police do something really bad and they get filmed in the act, its a bad thing. But if a regular citizen goes out and does something really bad and they get filmed, its ok? Im just really confused over all of this.
06-28-2010, 12:28 PM
#2
Moderator
Well, the story is correct. The state in which they made the recording is a two-party state. To record voice or visuallly, you must have the other party's consent. Makes it bad for recording phone calls. I believe most other states (Texas included) is a 1-party state in which you may record anything as long as it's not in a protected space, such as someone's house.
It has it's good and bads, but I'd rather be in a 1-party state so I can record a**hole solicitors and prosecute them if need be.
It has it's good and bads, but I'd rather be in a 1-party state so I can record a**hole solicitors and prosecute them if need be.
06-29-2010, 03:52 PM
#4
Super Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Posts: 11,851
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Vehicle: 2008 Toyota Prius 2006 Suzuki SV650S
QUOTE (JonGTR @ Jun 28 2010, 11:28 AM)
Well, the story is correct. The state in which they made the recording is a two-party state. To record voice or visuallly, you must have the other party's consent. Makes it bad for recording phone calls. I believe most other states (Texas included) is a 1-party state in which you may record anything as long as it's not in a protected space, such as someone's house.
So, why is it legal for news stations to film events without everyone in the background's consent, and/or helo-chopter footage of chases/events? They don't have 2 party consent there.