Democratic Congressman introduces bill to protect citizens who videotape cops

Police across the country have increasingly been using state wiretapping laws to arrest people who videotape them in public, even though those laws were created to protect private telephone conversations.

I've been writing about this issue extensively on my blog, but it wasn't until a Maryland man was facing 16 years in prison before the mainstream media caught on.

In the last month, I've been interviewed countless times, including by the Washington Post and NPR Talk of the Nation.

Yesterday, USA Today wrote a scathing editorial denouncing these arrests.

Yesterday, Congressman Edolphus Towns of New York introduced a resolution that would clarify these laws and allow people to videotape cops in public without fear of getting arrested.

This is a story you will only read on my blog at the moment.


http://carlosmiller.com/2010/07/16/breaking-news-congressman-introduces-bill-to-protect-citizens-who-videotape-cops/

Gotta keep 'em honest.

Someone in Congress with a knowledge of Constitutional rights.

Awesome.

And too many career congress-sheep will comply.

searches and wire tapping and are told it shouldn't bother us if we have nothing to hide. It's for our own safety they say.
The right-wing just never can apply the same logic to all relevant situations. Videotaping cops in many cases would be for their own safety.
What some of them really hate is it takes away some control over the situation. They have to follow the rules and whoever they may be dealing with will know it. That takes away a lot of the intimidation factor. They also have to assume they may be being taped in many situations and would like to make people afraid of doing that.

For example, while in control of a motor vehicle (or other transportation contrivance, eg. horse, bicycle) random testing for the presence of alcohol or other debilitating substance is acceptable. Same for spot checks of license, compulsory insurance status and registration. They are agreed upon preconditions for being on the roads.

The recording of events in a public space is a completely different kettle of fish. There should be no restrictions, though I accept conditions might be applicable. The most likely being required to make evidentiary copies available if necessary. Simple solution, make sure you record a duplicate copy and idealy make that second copy in a physically separate location.

FFS, given how small spy cameras are these days, and the number of networked portable devices about, no one should be able to get away with shit in an organised crowd situation today. TruVue spectacles anyone?

If the police can successfully prosecute a case for involuntary video taping, than can I sue a department store for invasion of privacy, or could they just be liable for arrest?

:kick:

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

on MSNBC!! :hi: