It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge Says There's No First Amendment Right to Record the Cops

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Reason magazine reports:


Federal District Court Judge Suzanne Conlon has dismissed (PDF) an ACLU challenge to the Illinois law that makes recording someone in a public space without their permission a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. As I've reported here, the law is used almost exclusively against people who attempt to record on-duty police officers. The ACLU was seeking declarative and injunctive relief to prevent the police from arresting workers and volunteers who planned to record police at an anti-war protest this spring.


Of course, toward the end, we see the criminal Illinois street thugs you call police have granted themselves an exception.


The Illinois law also includes an exception for law enforcement, so police recordings without permission of the person being recorded are permissible.


The criminal looting thugs you call police always have more rights than you do, including when it comes to freedom of speech.

You are simply a tax cow to be milked at the pleasure of the State.

Any notion that you are a free and sovereign individual must be crushed.

You should take the time to read this article, you actually get to see what a criminal federal judge thinks about your right to record public "servants" (lol) in action.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
then it looks like they have no justification for the cctv security net being constructed across the country.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
then it looks like they have no justification for the cctv security net being constructed across the country.


The State has all the justification it needs to do anything they wish to you.

The public has consented to giving the State a monopoly privilege on the use of force.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


then i guess its a good thing i have the option of not belonging to the state



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
The American law enforcement officers are God-Kings upon the face of the earth - I'm surprised they even show up on camera.

We should all be grateful for their presence here. I know I am.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RelentlessLurker
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


then i guess its a good thing i have the option of not belonging to the state


You certainly have that option.

Of course, since the State has a monopoly on the use of force, you might find yourself in a dungeon somewhere if you decide to "opt out of the system".



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
We honestly have no end of consitutionally and BoR related issues in Illinois.. not to mention flaunting of federal law. We moved here due a transfer and I cant NOT wait until we are in a position to move again. Nowhere inthe US is great these days given all of the issues but NOWHERE is like Illinois. I refuse to raise my children in this place.

If you want to see where your prez and Washingtons love of the CHicago School want to take you.. watch Illinois.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


i wouldn't call it a full blown monopoly.

there are other sovereign bodies that reside in this nations boundary that claim exclusive rights to force on whomever they so chose.

and are acknowledged globally.

edit on 20-1-2011 by RelentlessLurker because: spellering



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Ok so all CCTV systems, street monitoring systems, and all News film crews are in breach of the law. Good to have it finally clarified.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
The Gestapo police and NAZI authorities are exempt from the 1st Amendment?

But..but...the founding fathers SPECIFICALLY legislated that law with THEM in mind!!!!!

Without the freedom from the 1st amendment, the entire sacred Constitution is meaningless!

And...And...the Judiciary were supposed to interprete any later legislation attempts, against the Constitution to ensure its validity and legality as a sworn oath to uphold and protect the Constitution always.

Which college degree mill was that federal judge from, and how much had he paid or whose boots had he licked daily to be sitting on the bench????
edit on 20-1-2011 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Which college degree mill was that federal judge from,????


Probably a publicly funded one.


edit on 20-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I wonder if you could side step that ruling by claiming yourself a member of the free press ? I am tired of these cockroaches hiding from the light. Now we are being shown exactly what the public really is to these scum bag elites.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
this will be interesting.

i wonder what they are going to do about fixed private security cameras that may be pointing towards say....a street, and just so happens to catch some kind of incident.

people have been enjoying the assumed right of filming their own private property for a while now, most if not all businesses have them. Many homes have them. it would be unreasonable to expect them all to never capture public view somewhat.

now i wonder how they would make the distinction between my house and say....my pocket. both are my property and i am capable of filming both for securities sake. if a crime happens to get filmed or recorded in the background, i would think id be expected to provide the evidence to the courts, as would be the case in any other situation (gas station security camera etc).

or heres a more probable scenario, maybe im riding my bike and ive got one of those helmet cams recording the trip to upload to youtube, and an incident breaks out in front of me involving police. they cant seriously expect me to stop and turn off the camera.

will i have to walk around recording everytime i go to and from my house? if your already recording and the incident breaks out in front of you then your intentions speak for themself on the film, but does this mean we will have to walk around recording every trip start to finish just to prove we werent intending to film police, but at the same time protect ourselves from any abuse or curruption?
edit on 20-1-2011 by RelentlessLurker because: additions



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
I wonder if you could side step that ruling by claiming yourself a member of the free press ? I am tired of these cockroaches hiding from the light. Now we are being shown exactly what the public really is to these scum bag elites.


The press is specifically who this bill is designed to constrain.

The last thing the State wants is for its crimes to be aired in public.

See wiki leaks.


edit on 20-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Which college degree mill was that federal judge from, and how much had he paid or whose boots had he licked daily to be sitting on the bench????


The judge is not a he but a she and what more can you expect from a state that Obama hails from.

This judge is the epitome of why this nation is going down the toilet fast. Policemen are servants to the people. When taking the badge, they are sworn to uphold our rights, not some interpretation of the constitution from some whacko judge.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



I'd rather be in hell than illinois. That is one F'ed up state.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I have broken the covenant of the keys.

Dear, Sir. On this matter, I agree 100%.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Which college degree mill was that federal judge from,????


Probably a publicly funded one.


edit on 20-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Nope,she went to college and got her college degree from Mundelein College, a private Catholic University, now affiliated with Loyola, another private Catholic university where she got a law degree. It's the fault of the baby-raping Catholics



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Which college degree mill was that federal judge from,????


Probably a publicly funded one.


edit on 20-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Nope,she went to college and got her college degree from Mundelein College, a private Catholic University, now affiliated with Loyola, another private Catholic university where she got a law degree. It's the fault of the baby-raping Catholics


Yes, religion does have tendency to produce crazed statist nuts.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


About her college experience.... Loyola is as controlled as the rest of the universities.

ACCREDITATION

Without the Illinois State Board of EduConditioning, and the US Department of EduConditioning, Loyola would, simply, not be.

Believe me, as I write this I am attending a private university and can say that it is just as bad as a state university. To be honest, I am about to go back to a state school because it is not worth it, and there is no philosophical gain by going 'private'.

It's all a scam.




top topics



 
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join