A First Amendment right to record the police

[chipbennett]

As Commandant Supreme of the Police State, i order you to cease your discussion of said Police State.

The First Rule of Police State is: nobody talks about Police State

 

[T.Lex]

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to private citizens.

Not yet.... And if you had nothing to hide, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[chipbennett]

And back to the OP:

Again and again and again the public wins on this issue in the courts and the government loses. Yet, somehow these police avoid being held responsible because they had "qualified immunity" for being ignorant of the law.

Not only the law, and growing judicial consensus, but also explicit police department policy.

I have an inherent problem with "qualified immunity" for a police officer's ignorance of the law (law that it is the officer's explicit duty to enforce), especially when "ignorance of the law" is not a valid defense for those without badges.

 

[HoughMade]

Believe it or not, I'm just getting around to reading through this thread.

Judicial activism comes in all forms, I guess. While there may well be a right to observe what happens in public and record it, I don't see it in the First Amendment. I don't write the decisions, though.

 

[IndyDave1776]

And back to the OP:



Not only the law, and growing judicial consensus, but also explicit police department policy.

I have an inherent problem with "qualified immunity" for a police officer's ignorance of the law (law that it is the officer's explicit duty to enforce), especially when "ignorance of the law" is not a valid defense for those without badges.