75-Year Sentence for Taping the Police? The Absurd Laws That Criminalize Audio and Video Recording

This is the most retarded thing i have heard in a long while. Are you sure OP this is real.

You would not get 75 years for murder let alone rercording the police.

reply to post by DomCheetham

There were no signs at the courtroom entrance forbidding recording devices like they have for firearms. Even one day in jail was too much IMO. He was also punished for being honest...he could have lied to the judge and said yes he had one (as he promised to bring) and said that it was not turned on. If the judge demanded to see it he could have turned it off in his pocket and if the judge tested it to see if it had recorded then he could have said that it must have gotten turned on accidentally in his pocket. He was honest. He told them that he would record the hearing if there was no court recorder and the judge basically trapped him with the questions - the man was not warned to not bring a tape recorder to court.

You have some harsh laws, America is a twisted place sometimes.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
So the ONLY tool to keep capitalism in check, is now the tool to keep them in power and unquestioned. I remember during the Gulf Oil gusher that the Coast Guard, was used only to protect the well head from reporters and scientists so that BP would have anyone know how much oil was coming out. The Oil regulators, were working as cover for the oil companies just as the EPA seems to just be a way for well-paid polluters to avoid liability lawsuits.

You may wish to read the various books, articles and letters by Ayn Rand, the woman has been credited as the basis for modern american conservative and libertarian thought and it does appear she used a bastardized reading of Nietzsche, mixed with the hero worship of a known psychopath for the basis of her views. Which fits nicely with the current view of corporate government. I would point out my opinion isn't unique, although i came to it without influence from others and then discovered others had come to the same conclusion.

I was writing a thread about it all but a tragedy in my life has derailed me. I will continue to write it when i have the time but i doubt it will garner much attention.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Judges themselves have almost a qualified immunity in terms of being sued and what not for the bovious reasons.

Was that a Freudian Slip there mate? As in, deep down, you know those reasons are bull?

reply to post by romanmel

Be sure, you shall surely reap whatever you sow.

Starred

Many people seem to think they are members of an impervious, faceless bureaucracy & many more seem to simply accept this. This illusion is often propped up by specific laws. However, that does not mean that such individuals are immune from extra-judicial revenge. In my 2 experiences where I had no legal recourse to extreme arseholery of this sort, I took different approaches:

1) Against a nasty little jobsworth local govt employee:
I calmly informed him that I considered him personally responsible for his actions, that the car-park surrounding the building was easily accessible to the public & that his attitude was severely effing with my gran. I didn't threaten him, I let his own mind fill in the blanks. My gran got what she needed.

2) Against 2 coppers who really ought to have gone to jail:
I had to be very circumspect. For a few months it was a bit of a "Cape Fear" type obsession, just without the drama or violence. As it happens, I was able to find out enough about them so that I could stand back & use a really long screwdriver to poke into the carburrettas of their lives. No need to do anything illegal, just find out the truth & make it available to those whose knowledge of it will hurt most... but also in the right order. Destroy their family life. Then their jobs. Then go for criminal prosecution.
1 killed himself, although the verdict was "Death By Misadventure". I'm disappointed by that b/c I wanted him in jail & also b/c the other managed to blame it all on his dead colleague & take early retirement. Well, I had a few tweaks left & the last I heard, he was in rehab for drink for the 2nd time.
I'd say the most important thing I learned from both experiences is that, if a person is an arsehole to you, chances are its by no means an isolated incident. Their guilt makes them personally &/or legally vulnerable.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


It was already up on wikipedia. I added a source.

This is an issue that may very well come to a boiling point in our era, and will probably require MASS civil disobedience to such fascist laws.

If we can be recorded by government and private business then WE CAN RECORD THEM. There shall be NO double standard, ESPECIALLY if we consider ourselves to be living in a "Democracy" that requires constant vigilance in defense of our freedoms.

These police and judges are completely full of it and need to be absolutely shamed into fear for promoting these perversions of our rights.

let's go right back to the article quoted in the original posting here -

"The good news is that few people have actually been convicted under these laws for documenting police wrongdoing; neither Michael Allison nor Christopher Drew nor Tiawanda Moore are likely to go to prison for the recordings they made."

So there you go.
Next.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
If we can be recorded by government and private business then WE CAN RECORD THEM. There shall be NO double standard, ESPECIALLY if we consider ourselves to be living in a "Democracy" that requires constant vigilance in defense of our freedoms.

Agreed. NO DOUBLE STANDARDS. The law cannot be above the law which they are sworn to uphold.

I don't know about you, but i would rather be recorder without my consent than something like being murdered.
I read about these people who got out of jail after 5 years for murder. And thats a common occurance. Yet they give someone an extremely and unfairly long sentence for voice recording someone? ...

And they were talking about being in "violation of peoples privacy" what about all those people who were groped by TSA?? Man, the world sure is screwed up right now....

Originally posted by dreamseeker
* * * 75 years seems way to steep * * *.

Way too steep? It should not be a crime at all. There should be no criminal charge, fine, or sentence at all.

The way these laws are applied criminalizes perfectly civil, non-violent, non-intrusive conduct. Recording and videotaping the activities of those clothed with official authority forces them to respect those whom they are paid to protect and serve. These anti-recording laws only protect the dishonest cops, judges, and public officials who pervert their positions of authority.

Recording and videotaping not only exposes the dishonest, violent, and predatory cops and officials, it also protects the innocent ones from false accusations.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
* * * if I as Foreman can nullify the case citing the defendant's right to have the case recorded to prevent a case of corruption and neglect. * * *

Any juror has the power to "nullify" simply by voting "not guilty". A juror is not required to justify their decision to anyone.

Originally posted by ommadawn
let's go right back to the article quoted in the original posting here -

"The good news is that few people have actually been convicted under these laws for documenting police wrongdoing; neither Michael Allison nor Christopher Drew nor Tiawanda Moore are likely to go to prison for the recordings they made."

So there you go.
Next.

No. You don't simeply dismiss and forget about this affront with a "so there you go", move on, nothing to see here, "next". There should be no criminal charge, no arrest, no court appearance, no fine, no black mark on his record whatsoever.

So there YOU go.

The more you consider the countless laws and strings and gimmies and loopholes and so on, the more you realize nothing is going to change. Too much momentum, too much investment. Either one of two things is going to happen. It's going to continue and become even more complicated and expansive and unseen, or it's going to completely collapse along with all the rest of us in a gigantic catastrophe. I think it's more likely it survives and we evolve to become a hybrid hive-like society where everything is heavily controlled and nothing happens without it being known by the controlling mechanisms.

If you look back in history you see a progression of increased control and government. Part of it relates to the information age allowing for this and part of it's the technology to observe and control. Part of it's our evolution and heightened intellect that allows for greater complexity. So I think it's a given that in the future society will be more heavily controlled than it's now, but at the same time our minds will be more extensive and we will be more understanding of that control. IF we were to place ourselves into this future society we would be disgusted and repulsed by it and even violently opposed, but that's only because: a) we lack the intelligence to understand b) we have vices and faiths and principles that are counter to it (almost every older generation would run counter to our own) c) we do not understand the relationship between technology and control as well as we could.

I had a dream once. I was shown a story by an alien. It felt like reading a book. It told me in my mind that the reason societies collapse is because of what I saw in the story. The story was about prisoners escaping prison to find freedom. The implication from it was that the reason societies collapse is because we try to escape from them. Our need to be free runs counter to order.

It was just a dream, but it struck me and i remember. I'm sure that orderliness can be overbearing and that the need for individuality can be suffocated, but at the same time, without rules and guides and limits in place how does a society function? Don't we need roads? Guides? Rules?

Interestingly, that dream could also be interpreted as saying that we should keep prisoners in prisons. This would be the perspective of a controller. Whereas, the controlled, like me, would perceive the dream as saying that we should not run from order for freedom blindly or we will be the instrument of our destruction. But I do seem to recall the dream applying emphasis to escaping control only to find ... nothing. This may just be an attribute of my own bias or perceptions. Maybe I'm just the controlled. But I seem to remember this. (This occurred to me so I added this paragraph.)

My feeling is control needs to be representative, but cannot be done away with.

Originally posted by DomCheetham
You have some harsh laws, America is a twisted place sometimes.

To those not familiar with our bill or rights and constitution I can see how one could come to tht conclusion. But since the world is not black and white, one must research to find the answer, instead of just making a blanket claim and assuming its true based on ignorance.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Judges themselves have almost a qualified immunity in terms of being sued and what not for the bovious reasons.

Was that a Freudian Slip there mate? As in, deep down, you know those reasons are bull?

Lol.. let me explain again.

In this case, the judges actions towards the guy recording in the courtroom were legal. Illinois is a 2 party consent, and the guy entered the courtoom with the device recording. To not be in violation of the wiretap law he would have needed to enter, and ask every person present who is involved with his case if its ok.

Now, with that being said, the Judge is a huge tool. Justice would have been better served had he taken the 5 minutes to explain how the wiretap law works, instead of being an ass about it. In this case, just because the judge can do it, does not mean he should.

Personally
- The Prosecuting attorney who entetained the charges should be investigated for proescutorial misconduct
- The Cops should be investigated to make sure they did not intimidate / violate his civil rights.
- The Judge should be disciplined for being a tool and not exercising common sense in this case.

People do not have a right to record audio or video inside a courtroom unless permission is granted by the Judge presiding over that courtroom. The intrests of a fiar trial and protection of the accused will be weighed against the publics intrest, and as I said, in the end, any close calls will go to the accused by default.

While courts are open to the public, there are still restrictions in place for judicial reasons described above. Judges who violate the law, ethics etc can have a complaint filed against them. It will go to a comittee who will review the complaint and go from there.

Because of the nature of the a judges job, yes they have what pretty much equates to qualified immunity from lawsuits. If they did not have that, can you imagine the way cases would be ruled on the moment a lawsuit threat is made? Can you imagine the number of lawsuits that would clog the judicial system by people who lost their case and blame the judge for that?

If a judge makes a mistake during the trial, it gives ground for an appeal. In the Judicial system thats how it works.

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
* * * if I as Foreman can nullify the case citing the defendant's right to have the case recorded to prevent a case of corruption and neglect. * * *

Any juror has the power to "nullify" simply by voting "not guilty". A juror is not required to justify their decision to anyone.

edit on 1/29/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)

Jury nullification comes from the Judge, not the jury. A judge can nullify, or set aside, a juries verdict is he/she beleives the conclusion of the jury is not in line with the evidence or law. This is rare for the obvious reasons and usually gives ground for an appeal.

As a juror, once the verdict is read there is an option to poll the jury. The judge will go person to person and ask how they voted for a matter of record.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Jury nullification comes from the Judge, not the jury. A judge can nullify, or set aside, a juries verdict is he/she beleives the conclusion of the jury is not in line with the evidence or law. This is rare for the obvious reasons and usually gives ground for an appeal.

As a juror, once the verdict is read there is an option to poll the jury. The judge will go person to person and ask how they voted for a matter of record.

No that is not correct. Jury nullification is the jury nullifying bad laws by refusing to convict despite the accused technically breaking the law. It is an American tradition that has been abandoned in the last 30 years. It is the last line of defense for government of, by, and for the people. The Halstead act (prohibition) is probably the most well known case of Jury nullification. Juries refused to convict people for selling and making alcohol which finally lead to it being repealed.

It is amazing today we cannot get enough people to stop convicting thier fellow Americans of victimless crimes. To many people are ignorant of this tool

This could merit its own topic. We heard of the teen who was charged with attempted lynching because the cops claimed he yelled "kick her ass" to a friend who was being detained. He faced 7 years in jail for that. He was bailed out by a google engineer who saw the news story. Afaik there is 0 indication for the accusation to even be true. He was just filming the encounter. Now the really crap part. His house got raided. Every communication medium seized. Even privilidged attorney-client papers. Also everything his family has. This just makes my blood boil