The problem with this is that a policeman with a billy club who beats you because you're recording him doesn't care about your rights and not get fired. So be careful out there
I guess I should have been more clear: real-time but not live or automatically published. If it's automatically published then many people may be reticent to begin recording. For example, maybe you don't want the fact that your friend or family member is being arrested to immediately become public knowledge or otherwise shared, embarrassing video and all.[1][2] If in the end there's no police misconduct, the whole incident can remain relatively private. Yet if it turns out you're recording misconduct then it would be important that the footage be uploaded in real-time in case the cop (or anybody else) destroys your phone.
FWIW, I abstain from Facebook, Twitter, and social media in general. Apologies if Facebook Live or any other suggestion does support this.
[1] I'm white but grew up in home environments where the police were called many times, sometimes hauling someone away kicking and screaming. (Typical unintended consequence of alcohol abuse and otherwise bad life decisions, albeit all too common life decisions in poor America.) You have to be sensitive to such situations, especially in the modern electronic era where it's extremely difficult to escape past mistakes.
[2] The arrest could have been mistaken, in which case you definitely don't want a video of it getting out unless there was actual police misconduct or possibly even if there was police misconduct.
In Portland OR over the weekend, I witnessed this first hand. It wasn't even random people, it was press, with press badges. Beaten with a riot stick, and maced, multiple times. After he was beaten and maced he started limping away, the officer raised the mace, then hit him in the back a couple of times till the reporter turned around, then maced him full in the face. You can see the first hand and CCTV footage on Cory Elia's Twitter account, @TheRealCoryElia. He's also a news journalism professor at Portland Public University I believe.
> The problem with this is that a policeman with a billy club who beats you because you're recording him doesn't care about your rights and not get fired. So be careful out there
I had this discussion with many Americans: "What makes a constitutionally protected right to bear arms work, without a constitutionally protected right to use them?"
Believe it or not, in most states you do indeed have the right to self-defense against the police.[0] If the police are acting with excessive force, likely to cause great physical harm, you are within your rights to choose to fight back (notwithstanding the fact that this will probably get you killed). This principle was a big part of Randy Weaver’s successful defense after the Ruby Ridge stand-off.
Qualified immunity is for civil repercussions, not criminal. Individual police officers can go to jail for committing crimes in the line of duty. Any civil lawsuits stemming from such acts, however, cannot be aimed at the individual officer, but must instead be against the city/state/feds. I’m skeptical that letting officers get sued for things they can already go to jail for would be a major additional deterrent.
(To be clear, I’m in favor of ending qualified immunity in cases associated with criminal acts, not because I think it will make things better, but because it is fundamentally unjust for the taxpayers to be forced to cover the bill for an individual officer’s illegal acts, when the officer — of all people — should have known that the act was illegal)
I can't tell if you're trolling, but in case you're not, QI doesn't prevent the victim from seeking restitution, it just puts an umbrella over the officer's personal wealth by protecting it with the department/municipality's wealth.
It's the worst part of what we complained about banks and bailouts in 2008+: it socializes the costs and privatizes the profits/impunity.
We seek to replace things that are not working all of the time. Sometimes it takes more creative solutions, but usually we can fix systemic issues we have created ourselves, as long as we have a little imagination.
Defunding the police would allow us to do things like fund more social workers and non-armed, non-enforcement officers who can help people in crisis. It would allow us to fund infrastructure for safer streets, classrooms and highways. It would allow us to fund restorative justice programs, subsidize housing for those who need help and make our society work for everyone. It would allow us to fund drug treatment and education programs, fund school lunches, and help create vocational training.
Fundamentally, defunding the police would allow us to actually identify the problems that they solve, and eliminate those they create. The problems that are left over can then be solved in different ways.
> Congress shall make no law [religion stuff]; 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.
It's part of the overall combined notion of "speech, press, assembly, and petition"
> how can recording something be considered speech
You have to go back and understand the jurisprudence of US courts a long time to understand it. Basically you can't take the word "speech" too literally; it could be literal speech or the ability to assemble/protest, or the ability write a book, or the ability to spend money on a political election (what the sane world calls bribery far more than the USA does).
32 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 78.6 ms ] threadFWIW, I abstain from Facebook, Twitter, and social media in general. Apologies if Facebook Live or any other suggestion does support this.
[1] I'm white but grew up in home environments where the police were called many times, sometimes hauling someone away kicking and screaming. (Typical unintended consequence of alcohol abuse and otherwise bad life decisions, albeit all too common life decisions in poor America.) You have to be sensitive to such situations, especially in the modern electronic era where it's extremely difficult to escape past mistakes.
[2] The arrest could have been mistaken, in which case you definitely don't want a video of it getting out unless there was actual police misconduct or possibly even if there was police misconduct.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-po...
https://youtu.be/wkf-znzWKRc?t=18
also
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/06/04/jour...
https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/police-are-attacking-j...
Some sources
Edit: https://pressfreedomtracker.us/
2nd Edit: Quick note about Press Freedom Tracker, since they verify reports, their stats page may be a bit misleading. See https://twitter.com/uspresstracker/status/127005449029361664...
[1]. https://twitter.com/uspresstracker/status/127005449029361664...
[2]. https://twitter.com/apodoxus/status/1267336229097439239
I had this discussion with many Americans: "What makes a constitutionally protected right to bear arms work, without a constitutionally protected right to use them?"
[0]: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/resisting-arrest-whe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
(To be clear, I’m in favor of ending qualified immunity in cases associated with criminal acts, not because I think it will make things better, but because it is fundamentally unjust for the taxpayers to be forced to cover the bill for an individual officer’s illegal acts, when the officer — of all people — should have known that the act was illegal)
It's the worst part of what we complained about banks and bailouts in 2008+: it socializes the costs and privatizes the profits/impunity.
just like I can go to Mars. In real world They shoot someone on Live video feed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEjipYKbOOU, or strangle on camera and still walk free.
Defunding the police would allow us to do things like fund more social workers and non-armed, non-enforcement officers who can help people in crisis. It would allow us to fund infrastructure for safer streets, classrooms and highways. It would allow us to fund restorative justice programs, subsidize housing for those who need help and make our society work for everyone. It would allow us to fund drug treatment and education programs, fund school lunches, and help create vocational training.
Fundamentally, defunding the police would allow us to actually identify the problems that they solve, and eliminate those they create. The problems that are left over can then be solved in different ways.
But how can recording something be considered speech?!
1A says:
> Congress shall make no law [religion stuff]; 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.
It's part of the overall combined notion of "speech, press, assembly, and petition"
You have to go back and understand the jurisprudence of US courts a long time to understand it. Basically you can't take the word "speech" too literally; it could be literal speech or the ability to assemble/protest, or the ability write a book, or the ability to spend money on a political election (what the sane world calls bribery far more than the USA does).