Supreme Court rules taping police is a 1st Amendment right

[Charlie Prime]

Supreme Court rules taping police is a 1st Amendment right.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-prohibit-taping-of-police-20121126,0,686331.story

"The justices on Monday left in place a lower court ruling that found that the state's anti-eavesdropping law violates free speech rights when used against people who tape law enforcement officers."

Throwing the slaves a bone. :-)

[iCEBREAKER]

TO: statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov

Dear Miss Alvarez,

I was very pleased to read that you have lost your ill-conceived Supreme Court appeal seeking to destroy long established First Amendment protections for any citizens unfortunate enough to live under your oppressive jurisdiction.

Perhaps you should have taken your Oath of Office seriously and re-examined your poor understanding of the spirit and letter of the US Constitution, instead of wasting tax money on a fruitless quest to lick the jackboots of our nascent police state.

I honestly can't believe anyone with such terrible judgement and ignorance of the law could earn a legal degree, much less rise to an office of prominence!

You, Anita Alvarez, are a superb example of how race and gender based affirmative action are doing a disservice to our country by allowing eminently unqualified individuals such as yourself to occupy positions where your manifest incompetence becomes not only a waste of time and money, but threatens our very freedoms and liberties.

The McLean County State’s Attorney, Jason Chambers, made no such ridiculous mistake and thus will not suffer your humiliating embarrassment.  Of course Mr. Chambers is a white male who was required to work for his job qualifications, unlike you, a Hispanic female affirmative action baby of dubious intelligence and demonstrated hostility toward freedom of speech.

Good day Miss!

-iCEBREAKER

[pekv2]

snoop on to them as they snoop on to us

[Littleshop]

TO: statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov

Dear Miss Alvarez,

I was very pleased to read that you have lost your ill-conceived Supreme Court appeal seeking to destroy long established First Amendment protections for any citizens unfortunate enough to live under your oppressive jurisdiction.

Perhaps you should have taken your Oath of Office seriously and re-examined your poor understanding of the spirit and letter of the US Constitution, instead of wasting tax money on a fruitless quest to lick the jackboots of our nascent police state.

I honestly can't believe anyone with such terrible judgement and ignorance of the law could earn a legal degree, much less rise to an office of prominence!

You, Anita Alvarez, are a superb example of how race and gender based affirmative action are doing a disservice to our country by allowing eminently unqualified individuals such as yourself to occupy positions where your manifest incompetence becomes not only a waste of time and money, but threatens our very freedoms and liberties.

The McLean County State’s Attorney, Jason Chambers, made no such ridiculous mistake and thus will not suffer your humiliating embarrassment.  Of course Mr. Chambers is a white male who was required to work for his job qualifications, unlike you, a Hispanic female affirmative action baby of dubious intelligence and demonstrated hostility toward freedom of speech.

Good day Miss!

-iCEBREAKER

Too bad you screwed up a pretty good start with bigotry and failure to understand what affirmative action is.   Anita may be unqualified but affirmative action did not get her there, the voters did.  She was elected not elevated by a misguided law. 

[iCEBREAKER]

Um, no.  Teh voters do not (directly) control law school admission processes.   

nice try at winning the "I'm a hero for sniffing a whiff of bigotry" prize though.   

[Littleshop]

Um, no.  Teh voters do not (directly) control law school admission processes.   

nice try at winning the "I'm a hero for sniffing a whiff of bigotry" prize though.   

Again, you are attacking someone for their race and not their actions.  That is bigotry and it is also even worse when applied this way.

Her having a uterus or being Hispanic has not made her a bad states attorney nor has it caused her to read the constitution horribly wrong.  Other things have.  Most of the people who crap on the constitution are probably more educated, white and male then her. 

I am giving her no pass for what she did.  She sucks. 

[iCEBREAKER]

Again, you are attacking someone for their race and not their actions.  That is bigotry and it is also even worse when applied this way.

Her having a uterus or being Hispanic has not made her a bad states attorney nor has it caused her to read the constitution horribly wrong.  Other things have.  Most of the people who crap on the constitution are probably more educated, white and male then her.  

I am giving her no pass for what she did.  She sucks.  

Again, you are confusing recognizing affirmative action's role in catalyzing the Peter Principle with committing some kind of thought crime.

This stupid person had no business being admitted to any law school.  That reality was ignored, due solely to the fact she is a spic with a cunt.

The white male state attorney in a neighboring county didn't make her asinine mistakes, because he had to work for his achievements instead of having them presented on a silver platter.  

IDC about whatever "most of of the people" strawmen you imagine exist.  They didn't waste tax money in a failed attempt to further oppress us citizens.  She did.

[Richy_T]

I don't see how this is a first amendment issue (unless it was actually the publishing and not the recording that was at issue).

Of course, it absolutely should be allowed. Which probably means that there was a door the court didn't want to open by finding in favor for the *real* reason.

[stochastic]

I don't see how this is a first amendment issue (unless it was actually the publishing and not the recording that was at issue).

Of course, it absolutely should be allowed. Which probably means that there was a door the court didn't want to open by finding in favor for the *real* reason.

Freedom of the press.

[Richy_T]

I don't see how this is a first amendment issue (unless it was actually the publishing and not the recording that was at issue).

Of course, it absolutely should be allowed. Which probably means that there was a door the court didn't want to open by finding in favor for the *real* reason.

Freedom of the press.

A little tenuous but I'll give you that one.

[firefop]

accountability - enforced by videotape... is a good thing for all of us.

[Richy_T]

accountability - enforced by videotape... is a good thing for all of us.

Agreed. But "freedom of the press" is a bit tenuous when it's your average man-on-the-street doing the filming. I would think "unreasonable search and seizure" or something similar would cover it but that would probably set a precedent for blocking something the govt doesn't want stopped.

[cbeast]

TO: statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov

Dear Miss Alvarez,

I was very pleased to read that you have lost your ill-conceived Supreme Court appeal seeking to destroy long established First Amendment protections for any citizens unfortunate enough to live under your oppressive jurisdiction.

Perhaps you should have taken your Oath of Office seriously and re-examined your poor understanding of the spirit and letter of the US Constitution, instead of wasting tax money on a fruitless quest to lick the jackboots of our nascent police state.

I honestly can't believe anyone with such terrible judgement and ignorance of the law could earn a legal degree, much less rise to an office of prominence!

You, Anita Alvarez, are a superb example of how race and gender based affirmative action are doing a disservice to our country by allowing eminently unqualified individuals such as yourself to occupy positions where your manifest incompetence becomes not only a waste of time and money, but threatens our very freedoms and liberties.

The McLean County State’s Attorney, Jason Chambers, made no such ridiculous mistake and thus will not suffer your humiliating embarrassment.  Of course Mr. Chambers is a white male who was required to work for his job qualifications, unlike you, a Hispanic female affirmative action baby of dubious intelligence and demonstrated hostility toward freedom of speech.

Good day Miss!

-iCEBREAKER

Too bad you screwed up a pretty good start with bigotry and failure to understand what affirmative action is.   Anita may be unqualified but affirmative action did not get her there, the voters did.  She was elected not elevated by a misguided law. 

Too his credit, he did attempt to provide evidence for his assertion. It is the evidence that is in question. This is only racist in the sense that race is the evidence offered. I wouldn't go with the racist card here, but I agree that he screwed up a good opportunity for sending a letter that could have addressed politicians that oppose the right to self expression.

[stochastic]

accountability - enforced by videotape... is a good thing for all of us.

Agreed. But "freedom of the press" is a bit tenuous when it's your average man-on-the-street doing the filming. I would think "unreasonable search and seizure" or something similar would cover it but that would probably set a precedent for blocking something the govt doesn't want stopped.

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.

The idea is that anyone can be a journalist.  People do not need a license to be a journalist and journalism as a profession is not regulated.  This is the purpose of the amendment.  Anyone with the ability to transmit information can be a journalist.  Anyone can record another person on public property.  The laws in some areas that limited the recording of the law enforcement officers was restricted because it was claimed that it interfered with the duties of the officers.

There are plenty of videos on Youtube that show people recording police and getting arrested for doing that.  It is not because they interfere with the duties of an officer, but because the police department is trying to limit possible evidence for lawsuits on excessive use of force.

[TheButterZone]

Indeed. And when you have American police and sheriff departments engaging in arbitrary and capricious prior restraint like this: http://obrag.org/?p=5688

... you know you are a subject of tyranny and the 1A (not to mention the rest of the Constitution) is printed on .gov toilet paper.

[compro01]

Agreed. But "freedom of the press" is a bit tenuous when it's your average man-on-the-street doing the filming.

Still freedom of the press.  Just because any random joe can go buy a modern version of a printing press for cheap or borrow one for free doesn't change that.

[casascius]

I am curious if this has any application to the recent case I heard about in New Hampshire where a defendant was convicted of "wiretapping" for having recorded somebody without their permission (a school district employee on duty IIRC), and whose defense wasn't "I didn't do it", but rather, "I did it, but you the jury should nullify" (they didn't).  Apparently in New Hampshire, recording a two-party telephone conversation requires consent of both parties or else it's a crime.  The purpose of the recording as I understood it was well within what I'd consider for journalistic purposes as I believe the recording was made part of a YouTube video.

EDIT: here's a link http://rt.com/usa/news/copblock-wiretap-police-mueller-096/

[sangaman]

TO: statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov

Dear Miss Alvarez,

I was very pleased to read that you have lost your ill-conceived Supreme Court appeal seeking to destroy long established First Amendment protections for any citizens unfortunate enough to live under your oppressive jurisdiction.

Perhaps you should have taken your Oath of Office seriously and re-examined your poor understanding of the spirit and letter of the US Constitution, instead of wasting tax money on a fruitless quest to lick the jackboots of our nascent police state.

I honestly can't believe anyone with such terrible judgement and ignorance of the law could earn a legal degree, much less rise to an office of prominence!

You, Anita Alvarez, are a superb example of how race and gender based affirmative action are doing a disservice to our country by allowing eminently unqualified individuals such as yourself to occupy positions where your manifest incompetence becomes not only a waste of time and money, but threatens our very freedoms and liberties.

The McLean County State’s Attorney, Jason Chambers, made no such ridiculous mistake and thus will not suffer your humiliating embarrassment.  Of course Mr. Chambers is a white male who was required to work for his job qualifications, unlike you, a Hispanic female affirmative action baby of dubious intelligence and demonstrated hostility toward freedom of speech.

Good day Miss!

-iCEBREAKER

You were doing pretty well until the red. This turned what would've been a sharp but warranted criticism of a violation of free speech into a bitter, bigoted cheap shot.

White males who can score well on the LSAT are just as capable of trampling on people's rights and unjustly increasing the power of the police state.

The garbage in red also makes it easier for people to dismiss any sort of libertarian arguments as the work of bigots/racists.

[Littleshop]

TO: statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov

Dear Miss Alvarez,

I was very pleased to read that you have lost your ill-conceived Supreme Court appeal seeking to destroy long established First Amendment protections for any citizens unfortunate enough to live under your oppressive jurisdiction.

Perhaps you should have taken your Oath of Office seriously and re-examined your poor understanding of the spirit and letter of the US Constitution, instead of wasting tax money on a fruitless quest to lick the jackboots of our nascent police state.

I honestly can't believe anyone with such terrible judgement and ignorance of the law could earn a legal degree, much less rise to an office of prominence!

You, Anita Alvarez, are a superb example of how race and gender based affirmative action are doing a disservice to our country by allowing eminently unqualified individuals such as yourself to occupy positions where your manifest incompetence becomes not only a waste of time and money, but threatens our very freedoms and liberties.

The McLean County State’s Attorney, Jason Chambers, made no such ridiculous mistake and thus will not suffer your humiliating embarrassment.  Of course Mr. Chambers is a white male who was required to work for his job qualifications, unlike you, a Hispanic female affirmative action baby of dubious intelligence and demonstrated hostility toward freedom of speech.

Good day Miss!

-iCEBREAKER

You were doing pretty well until the red. This turned what would've been a sharp but warranted criticism of a violation of free speech into a bitter, bigoted cheap shot.

White males who can score well on the LSAT are just as capable of trampling on people's rights and unjustly increasing the power of the police state.

The garbage in red also makes it easier for people to dismiss any sort of libertarian arguments as the work of bigots/racists.

+1

[stochastic]

TO: statesattorney@cookcountyil.gov

Dear Miss Alvarez,

I was very pleased to read that you have lost your ill-conceived Supreme Court appeal seeking to destroy long established First Amendment protections for any citizens unfortunate enough to live under your oppressive jurisdiction.

Perhaps you should have taken your Oath of Office seriously and re-examined your poor understanding of the spirit and letter of the US Constitution, instead of wasting tax money on a fruitless quest to lick the jackboots of our nascent police state.

I honestly can't believe anyone with such terrible judgement and ignorance of the law could earn a legal degree, much less rise to an office of prominence!

You, Anita Alvarez, are a superb example of how race and gender based affirmative action are doing a disservice to our country by allowing eminently unqualified individuals such as yourself to occupy positions where your manifest incompetence becomes not only a waste of time and money, but threatens our very freedoms and liberties.

The McLean County State’s Attorney, Jason Chambers, made no such ridiculous mistake and thus will not suffer your humiliating embarrassment.  Of course Mr. Chambers is a white male who was required to work for his job qualifications, unlike you, a Hispanic female affirmative action baby of dubious intelligence and demonstrated hostility toward freedom of speech.

Good day Miss!

-iCEBREAKER

You were doing pretty well until the red. This turned what would've been a sharp but warranted criticism of a violation of free speech into a bitter, bigoted cheap shot.

White males who can score well on the LSAT are just as capable of trampling on people's rights and unjustly increasing the power of the police state.

The garbage in red also makes it easier for people to dismiss any sort of libertarian arguments as the work of bigots/racists.

+1

...judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like