Washington, D.C. Police Affirm Citizens' Right To Record Police Officers 210
dcsmith writes "Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier says, 'A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media,' and backs it up with a General Order to her Department. Quoting: The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) recognizes that members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record MPD members while MPD members are conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity.'"
Loophole (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet we'll find a bunch of cops using this as an excuse to take away your camera...
Bystander, not person being interviewed, searched (Score:5, Insightful)
A bystander has the same right to take photographs or make recordings as a member of the media
Emphasize "bystander". If the officer is trying to interview you, search you, etc then you are not a bystander.
Google (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why it's important to support Google's right to record audio or EM spectrum signals in public places. If we don't stick up for the uses we don't like, the uses we DO like will disappear along with.
Re:Police are not supposed to have any special pow (Score:5, Insightful)
Police do have special powers, and I'm not sure why you would claim otherwise. I can't arrest someone with the same leeway given to cops (note that your example had to specify an officer out of his jurisdiction). I can't get a warrant to bust down someone's door. I can't pull a car over for speeding. I can't own certain weapons.
And that's how it should be. We want law enforcement officers to have an edge over the regular civilians, because that means they'll also have an edge over criminals. But since we're giving them extra powers, we need to hold them to an extra high standard. Unfortunately, we tend to fall short on that last part.
Re:Citizens United did that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to correct but to say our rights derive from the Will of The People is completely false. Our rights are inherent, we are imbued with them by our creator. The Will of The People is what stops the government from infringing on them.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Re:Rights mean nothing if they can be infringed (Score:5, Insightful)
You are missing the point.
We (the US) thankfully have a pretty air-tight protection of speech in our First Amendment. There are two important aspects that come into play.
1. People have the right to associate, and assemble.
2. People have the right to say what they wish.
Because of that first part, you can't declare that a specific grouping of people does not deserve the protection of that second part.
If you declared corporations to NOT be protected under the First Amendment, how would you differentiate them from Newspapers or the Broadcast corporations? Would they have to be journalists? Who gets to determine who can be a member of the press?
Would it be illegal for a corporation like Pixar to create a movie with a specific political message simply because they are a corporation and not an individual? Who gets to determine 'how political' the message is before the government censors it.
Like it or not, we CAN'T impose restrictions on what corporations can say without creating some sort of government speech approval board for films, newspapers, television. Such a thing could not exist within the bounds of the US Constitution, nor do I think I would welcome such a board as it would be horrifically politicized.
Re:Loophole (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't loitering just the best law ever. You can be arrested for standing there, doing absolutely nothing.
Re:Citizens United did that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... so... my mom and my dad?