Federal Judge Says There's No First Amendment Right to Record the Cops

Now correct me if I'm wrong, (as I am sure that you all will do), but which part of the first amendment grants the right to record? The freedom of the press clause has almost always been historically protected the right to report, not record.

The right to free speech is essentially the same thing. Recording something, and expressing yourself about a situation are two seperate things.

If one, or an organization, wants to publish a news piece on a subject, there freedom to do so is not iinfringed.
Similarly if one wants to express themselves about anything, this freedom is also not infringed.

This does even seem to be a first amendment issue in the least bit.
Why would the ACLU not take a stance that seems to even come close to protect the right to record?
Did they have no intention of winning the case, only to gain more publicity when the ruling came out?

just my 2 cents here:

on another thread concerning this issue i proposed using an app like SpyVid which provides an alibi

'um, ossifer, how can I be recording you? as you can see, I'm checking my e-mail/texting/making a call,etc.

forget about that:
this is what is needed:
1st, build one of these:

SIXTHSENSE

and control it with something like this:

XWAVE

look! no hands!

then anonymously upload/stream or whatever.

if justice has fled the courts,
there is still the court of public opinion.
after all,
all this is an effort to keep their crimes secret.

the system requires the sanction of the victim. remove your sanction/support...


"The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps from its mouth: `I, the state, am the people.'... Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth. "
Friedrich Nietzsche

I would agree that there is no right to record police in the First Amendment.

The ACLU has not alleged a cognizable First Amendment injury.
The ACLU cites neither Supreme Court nor Seventh Circuit authority

that the First Amendment includes a right to audio record.

Cf. Potts v. City of Lafayette, Indiana, 121 F.3d 1106, 1111 (7th Cir.1997) (“there is nothing in the Constitution which guarantees the right to record a public event” ’). Amendment would therefore be futile....

Wouldn't the better argument have been that there is nothing in The Constitution that provides for the creation of a law against recording in public?"

reply to post by Oaktree


I think the ACLU wanted this outcome.

Now its a news story and it evoke public sentiment by people believing it is a first amendment issue.

But its not.

If the court had ruled that a news organization could not air a story using video, or that someone who actually does take a video can not air it, then that would be 1st amendment fodder.

And by looking at the news piece, the OP, and the entire first page of posts here, it seems the ACLU got exactly what they wanted.

But 1st Amendment issue, not even remotely.

I call bull#, We have every right to record. Illinois is going to hell anyway so we will see who runs the world when the rats run out.

reply to post by DINSTAAR


Of course, even private colleges are completely dependent upon federal loans.

And judges salaries are completely funded by tax dollars.

A judge can not be an impartial arbitrageur of disputes between the State and the people because they get their freaking paychecks from the State itself.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


You know, as I read the article, and typed out my reply, I kept thinking the same thing.
It's as if they wanted this outcome.

The ACLU has some top grade lawyers, and that they would argue that this is specifically protected under
The First, seems almost intentional.

Originally posted by TaxpayersUnleashed
I call bull#, We have every right to record. Illinois is going to hell anyway so we will see who runs the world when the rats run out.

Of course you do, but it isnt protected by the 1st amendment.
You fell into the ACLU trap as well.

All they wanted to do was enrage the public, like you here, into thinking that the courts were violating your 1st amendment rights, when this wasnt a 1st amendment issue to begin with.

The first amendment reaffirms a human right to freedom of speech. To speak effectively, one needs to back up his words with evidences, testimonials, pictures, etc.

In an event to speak out on public servants mishandling of situations, a picture tells a thousand words, but a video paints a better sequential picture of megawords.

To curtail the right to speak out freely with evidences on such events, is to limit or at worse, restrict the 1st amendment which is a right of humans.

It is a first amendment issue, make no mistake on that.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
The first amendment reaffirms a human right to freedom of speech. To speak effectively, one needs to back up his words with evidences, testimonials, pictures, etc.

In an event to speak out on public servants mishandling of situations, a picture tells a thousand words, but a video paints a better sequential picture of megawords.

To curtail the right to speak out freely with evidences on such events, is to limit or at worse, restrict the 1st amendment which is a right of humans.

It is a first amendment issue, make no mistake on that.

I disagree here, although I do see your point here.
The collection of evidence to support your freedom of speech/press/expression is a very important aspect, however there is no Constitutionality to it.
Perhaps there should be, and I believe that is where you are coming from here. You believe that there should be.
And you may be right, but the issue here isnt about what we feel 'should be' but what is in actuality.

You say that the freedom to speak out is curtailed, and it is not.
It is simply the collection of evidentiary images that is being curtailed, rightly or wrongly.
If you were to collect the evidence anyway, in spite of the law, your right to use them would not be curtailed, and that is what the first amendment is about.

she fired a law clerk on September 11, 2001 for complying with a evacuation order on the Senator Everett Dirksen Federal Building in Downtown Chicago. [3]

According to contributions to wikipedia...maybe not the best source for info., but I get the strange sense that shes been "instructed/ordered" to do this, possibly to set prescedence for other states and the federal govt. to follow suit. But frankly, I will be researching more about this and want to remind... I reserve the right to change my mind, if thats still legal.

What is right or wrong, when the purpose justify the means?

A judge or jury whom adheres to the constitutional right of a citizen, would readily recognise the need for evidences to back up the statements or sworn upon oaths of him in a court of justice, or redress thru the public media to create awareness.

And it is the judiciary, a branch of the govt as created by the founding fathers to be impartial, to protect the constitution.

Therefore, how can they, with absolute conscience to their duty and obligations as sworn upon taking office, to deny and deprive a citizen of his absolute right and freedom to provide necessary evidences?

Unless of course, evidences are not necessary and words alone is suffice to prove guilt or wrongs of a party is accepted as 'beyond reasonable doubt'. then there would be no need at all to gather any evidences. Just the words from one party is enough to pass sentence.

Then lets do away with the enforcement arms, the investigation arms, the security apparatus of a nation, for they are a waste to the taxpayers fund. A kangeroo court is all that is needed.

I sincerly doubt if the highly evolved and intelligent founding fathers had this in mind when they framed the sacred Constitution.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


The judiciary's first duty is to protect the State - because that is where their paychecks come from.

Expecting judges to be impartial when it comes to State power is ridiculous when they are funded through coercive taxation.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
I sincerly doubt if the highly evolved and intelligent founding fathers had this in mind when they framed the sacred Constitution.


signature:
Not to mention, very few people possesed a recording device of any kind back then. Thats the word on the street anyway.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Please Explain to me the Difference between viewing someone doing something with your Eyes and Remembering what they did using your Mental Abilities, and viewing someone doing something with your Eyes on a Camera or Video Recorder Lens and storing it Electonically on a Machine ? There IS NO Difference , Ergo , just Watching a Police Officer with your Eyes should Also not be your First Amendment Right according to this Judge ? .............LOL

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by mnemeth1
[ Ergo , just Watching a Police Officer with your Eyes should Also not be your First Amendment Right according to this Judge ? .............LOL

Where in the first amendment does it state that the right to watch something happen shall not be infringed?
You are also falling into the trap of the ACLU, they want you to be up in arms about this to bring themselves publicity. They never had any intention of proving anything about the first amendment. This is the outcome that they wanted all along. I highly doubt that a higly paid ACLU lawyer would not understand the first amendment,

reply to post by youdidntseeme


Human Sight is a GOD Given Right which Superceeds Mans Laws .........Hows that ?.........

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by youdidntseeme

 

Human Sight is a GOD Given Right which Superceeds Mans Laws .........Hows that ?.........

Correct, no one prevent you from this.
Still doesnt make it a first amendment issue though haha

reply to post by youdidntseeme

Now correct me if I'm wrong, (as I am sure that you all will do), but which part of the first amendment grants the right to record? The freedom of the press clause has almost always been historically protected the right to report, not record.

The First Amendment does not grant any rights what-so-ever. It is the first part of the First Amendment that makes clear it is not an Amendment granting rights, but is instead a prohibition placed upon Congress. Further, the Ninth Amendment makes perfectly clear that all enumerated rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. If you want to play semantics and separate "recording" from the right to publish freely, then look to the Ninth Amendment for the proper source, (federally speaking), of the right to "record" retained by the people.

However, this is a state issue, and specifically an issue with the State of Illinois. What does the Bill of Rights in the Illinois Constitution say about the matter?

All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. In trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published with good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be a sufficient defense.

Section 4, Article I, Bill of Rights, Illinois Constitution

One may take from this language; "All persons may" and construe that the State of Illinois is granting these rights, and of course, what can be granted can be taken away. However, there is the matter of Section 24, of Article I, of that same Bill of Rights:

The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the individual citizens of the State.

If the act of recording police officers is done so with good motives and for justifiable ends, and to be sure recording the brutality of a police state certainly constitutes good motives and justifiable ends, then it is a right retained by that person.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


And all of what you said is correct, you will receive no argument from me.
What I will argue is that this was not a first amendment issue at all.
Which is the same as the court stated.
The ACLU failed to meet the burden of proving that this case was a first amendment issue.
Which, I believe, they had no intent to do anyway, they knwe what the outcome would be and garnered the public outcry of the issue to gain sympathy to their cause. Which apparently worked.