Is filming protected by the 1st amendment?

[ladywnch]

If so, then how it is that so many communities/states have passed laws making filming of police a crime?

I mean, if I'm a tourist filming my vacation and I happen to catch police exceeding their authority, or employing excessive force, etc....I can be arrested? REALLY?!

Have any of these laws been challenged in court yet?

[meegbear]

1. Are Cameras the New Guns?

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

The legal justification for arresting the "shooter" rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

<snip>

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

It's a good to-the-point article on your questions.

[truebrit71]

7. But the piggies can film US without permission? Seems blatantly uncon to my uneducated brain..

..:shrug:

[ladywnch]

10. I'll read the article. but in the mean time, my understanding of

wiretap laws was that as long as ONE of the parties involved is aware that the conversation is being recorded then the other party doesn't NOT have to be informed and the recordings are admissible in court....as long as one party is aware. Is this no long true? I mean, I was told I could record a conversation on the phone without telling them I was recording it and that I could use it in court. Isn't this the same thing Linda Tripp did to Monica Lewinsky?.....Tripp knew she was recording and she didn't have to tell Lewinsky about it and her recording were used in court. I don't see how this is different....but again, I will read the article you linked to.

[WillowTree]

12. State and local laws vary about that. You need to be very sure what's what in your own locale.

[Posteritatis]

2. Communities and states pass lots of unconstitutional laws. (nt)

[T Wolf]

3. They want to protect their abuses from being exposed, so they "work the ref" and exploit

the way laws are written.

One result - filming (video) is not illegal, but if you have sound, that constitutes recording of sound which enables them to ban it under "wiretap" laws (even if they are no wires).

Kind of the same legal doubletalk bullshit that says Fuck Nuze cannot be regulated because it is not "airing" programming.

Face it - the law exists to justify bad actions by the powerful. Plus, as pointed out on another thread in the context of economic greed - the wealthy are now simply outright buying judges (and legislators) in order to make "legal" their illegal (and immoral) actions, just in case their interpretations are challenged for the bullshit they are.

[elleng]

4. Can and should be tested;

Don't assume existing laws are constitutional, as legislators have their own agendas.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Well it depends on what you are filming?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Actually, most of the limitations of filming the police or private individuals are based on the right to privacy.

We are still waiting on these cases to percolate up. In general, it is not accidental filming where most of the problems have risen.

[ladywnch]

9. but who is to say what is 'accidental' and what is on purpose?

it strikes me as a difficult, at best, law to enforce.

[ManiacJoe]

6. It is not the filming, it is the audio recording.

At least in most states that is the way it is. Fortunately, the lawyers/DAs are starting to correctly realize that the "wiretapping" laws do not apply since the police have no reasonable expectation of privacy out on the street.

[ladywnch]

8. I have read specifically about 'filming' police.

people with phone cams or vid cams either fined or arrested for filming cops doing bad things.

[ManiacJoe]

14. That is because "filming" includes audio on these cameras.

It is the audio part that some lawyers try to twist into wiretapping violations.

The courts have ruled multiple times that video (still or motion) of anyone in public (including the cops) is perfectly legal due to no reasonable expectation of privacy.

[Blue_In_AK]

11. If it isn't, it should be.

[MichaelHarris]

13. Chicago

has that law but it hasn't been tested in the higher courts yet. You can take photos of anyone in public as long as you don't interfere with his or her work.

This guy tried to stop me: http://www.palousephoto.net/Politics/Journalism/6058514_8mUhz#379782957_zU9AX I kept shooting and he finally stopped bothering me. His issue was one of the campus police had chased a motorcyclist in a residential area and the motorcyclist died when he went head first into a building.

The police officer was claiming the kid didn't have a helmet on. My photo clearly shows blood on the helmet. They were not too happy about that photo.