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.

 

Court says public has right to video police in public places.

page: 1
14

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
www.universalhub.com...

The article states the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston sided with a lawyer who was suing the city and police officers. There decision was that the arrest and confiscation of his phone under wiretapping laws violated his 1st and 4th amendment rights. The exact ruling at the moment will allow the lawyer to sue the police involved since the court felt they shouldn't get special legal protection just because they are cops on the job. The court also felt that free speech rights shouldn't just be for journalists, but extended to common citizens because everyone can be a reporter now due to new technology. Below is a link to the PDF of the complete ruling.

www.ca1.uscourts.gov...
edit on 30-8-2011 by wiandiii because: for content




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by wiandiii
 



Boston is a LIBERAL city, and you can pretty much bet this is why individual freedoms and liberties were prioritized and protected. Other places not so much. But argue this if you will, conservatives and the GOP will not go along with this if it disrupts enforcing the law or if it limits the GOVERNING arm or the authority of the powers that be, which include the military and the police.

I am sure this will get to the Supreme Court and they will attempt to overturn it.
We have to draw a line in the sand however, and not stand for it if they do.



edit on 30-8-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
This is interesting. It may have some profound implications.. For example, bloggers do not share the same constitutional rights as the "press".



TRENTON —New Jersey’s legal protections allowing journalists to keep their sources secret do not apply to those who post to online message boards, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.





The court, clarifying an area of law that has not kept up with advances on the internet, said bloggers must have some connection to "news media" to invoke New Jersey’s shield law protecting journalists from revealing their confidential sources.


This 2009 ruling is still ongoing. Attorney Jeffery Polluck, of Princeton who argued this case, has appealed and was quoted:



He said the decision narrows the scope of people who qualify for the protection to keep sources confidential, a sentiment echoed by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based policy research group.

"Putting aside the wisdom of shield laws, they should not exist to protect only certain classes of Americans a court defines as ‘journalists.’ Freedom of the press is not truly free if the definition of ‘press’ is left up to the whim of a judge," said Jim Lakely, co-director of the institute’s Center on the Digital Economy.

www.njnews.com


I think the case in the OP will go to the Supreme Court and be overturned. I think it will be an up hill battle for us to hang onto our rights while TPTB try to figure out how to squash our freedoms. But the decision DOES make me happy!



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
This is great news! A ray of hope in a dark and dismal world. Starred and flagged!



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by wiandiii
 


I think this is awesome, if they weren't doing anything except being super awesome good guys, why wouldn't they want to be filmed being such kick a$$ rolemodels?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
The fact that we feel we need to be given the right of free speech does slightly amuse me :/







edit on 9/29/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
14

log in

join