Here's Another Interesting Case Concerning the First Amendment

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Gadsden

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
9,943
Reaction score
30,361
Location
Somewhere west of Tulsa
I definitely don't know what the right answer is for this specific situation. After seeing some completely nonsensical responses to well documented police processes over the past several years, I certainly understand the concern. Would the application of the 1A in this scenario have a similar boundary as inciting a riot with speech? If someone livestreams an interaction with law enforcement that then causes a public disruption, could that person be accused of inciting civil unrest of some sort?

I have always struggled with the dissonance between what is moral/ethical and what is legal. My views on what is moral and acceptable behavior is far beyond what I would ever want to see put on the books as law. I think someone stopping to record what may be someone's most devastating day of their life just to get some likes on social media is pretty despicable. I do not like to think about how a law trying to curb that action could become egregiously abused and ultimately really erode some core freedoms in this country.
Well said!
 

TedKennedy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11,213
Reaction score
12,364
Location
Tulsa
I understand the application of the 1st Amendment in this case and even though I am not saying I disagree (nor am I saying I agree) with the defendant, if this is allowed where does it end? For example, are they also going to argue it's their right to livestream victims, who may be deceased, as they are being extracted from a vehicle involved in a traffic accident? Do the victims and their families have no rights of privacy just because they are in public? Is it fair to take the chance that a family member may learn about the death of a loved one through social media just to satisfy what another person claims is his or her right to record/livestream the scene? Just throwing this out there as a possible extension of what may happen if the court rules in favor of the defendant in this case.

Yes, there will be ugly cases of victims being livestreamed, no doubt.

There are cases for internet use being tied to child porn.

Cell phone use has been tied to murder cases.

Justification for limits on free speech should not be based on the "what ifs" of bad actions, liberty must be the key consideration, in my opinion.
 

Johnny

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
4,872
Reaction score
807
Location
Fort Gibson
Not really a comment on the issue at hand...just how stupid the bolded comment is.
It may be a stupid comment in your eyes. Your EX LEO. And maybe in the eyes of half of this board. But you cannot strip away every constitutional right a person has during a traffic stop so you feel more comfortable about harassing people on the side of the road.

I haven’t seen the recording but if the LEO is doing his job, I don’t see why he felt the need to stop the recording or take the phone away.
If the person doing the recording was actively inciting people to show up an interfere with the traffic stop during the recording, There is most likely and inciting a riot charge or threatening a police officer that he could have been immediately arrested for. Which would have stopped the recording and the passenger would have had charges against him.

I don’t see how using the argument “ I don’t want everybody to know I am in this location with this person stopped and I don’t feel safe while doing it” is a valid argument. If you don’t feel comfortable doing an LEO’s job don’t be a cop.

The department is trying to set precedent and create law that removes other individuals personal rights under the guise it will make my job safer. When what they really mean is it will make it easier for me to harass them them and threaten them because it is illegal for them to live stream the stop.
 

TerryMiller

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
18,619
Reaction score
18,201
Location
Here, but occasionally There.
Guess you ain't heard about flash mobs

Just out of curiosity, what are the odds that the "mob of people" surrounding a traffic stop are viewing that passenger's livestream or that have time to get to the location from where they are located? Also, for your "flash mob" to occur, the person doing the recording would have to have given the address where the stop was made.

I suspect that a "flash mob" isn't going to occur because of the livestream, but it may if enough people are around the stop that decide to react to the stop.
 

CountryLivin'

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 11, 2022
Messages
379
Reaction score
553
Location
Oklahoma
Just out of curiosity, what are the odds that the "mob of people" surrounding a traffic stop are viewing that passenger's livestream or that have time to get to the location from where they are located? Also, for your "flash mob" to occur, the person doing the recording would have to have given the address where the stop was made.

I suspect that a "flash mob" isn't going to occur because of the livestream, but it may if enough people are around the stop that decide to react to the stop.
guess that depends on where the traffic stop is. if they are in the hood there's already gonna be other turds joining in. They will be happy to give out where they are.
 

trekrok

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
3,575
Reaction score
5,874
Location
Yukon, OK
I can definitely see this becoming an organized flash mob channel circus where people intentionally get stopped to livestream the encounter.

That said, is there really any significant increase in danger for the LEO if livestreaming vs recording locally. I mean, if a person wanted to call others to the location, they can share their location and send a message to a facebook group or whatever, right? Seems like a good way to escalate things for everyone, but that's often the goal it seems.

Couldn't pay me enough to do the job.
 

CountryLivin'

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 11, 2022
Messages
379
Reaction score
553
Location
Oklahoma
It may be a stupid comment in your eyes. Your EX LEO. And maybe in the eyes of half of this board. But you cannot strip away every constitutional right a person has during a traffic stop so you feel more comfortable about harassing people on the side of the road.

I haven’t seen the recording but if the LEO is doing his job, I don’t see why he felt the need to stop the recording or take the phone away.
If the person doing the recording was actively inciting people to show up an interfere with the traffic stop during the recording, There is most likely and inciting a riot charge or threatening a police officer that he could have been immediately arrested for. Which would have stopped the recording and the passenger would have had charges against him.

I don’t see how using the argument “ I don’t want everybody to know I am in this location with this person stopped and I don’t feel safe while doing it” is a valid argument. If you don’t feel comfortable doing an LEO’s job don’t be a cop.

The department is trying to set precedent and create law that removes other individuals personal rights under the guise it will make my job safer. When what they really mean is it will make it easier for me to harass them them and threaten them because it is illegal for them to live stream the stop.
coming from somebody who ain't done the job and don't know squat about it
 

OK Corgi Rancher

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
7,284
Reaction score
22,882
Location
Greater Francis, OK metropolitan area
It may be a stupid comment in your eyes. Your EX LEO. And maybe in the eyes of half of this board. But you cannot strip away every constitutional right a person has during a traffic stop so you feel more comfortable about harassing people on the side of the road.

I haven’t seen the recording but if the LEO is doing his job, I don’t see why he felt the need to stop the recording or take the phone away.
If the person doing the recording was actively inciting people to show up an interfere with the traffic stop during the recording, There is most likely and inciting a riot charge or threatening a police officer that he could have been immediately arrested for. Which would have stopped the recording and the passenger would have had charges against him.

I don’t see how using the argument “ I don’t want everybody to know I am in this location with this person stopped and I don’t feel safe while doing it” is a valid argument. If you don’t feel comfortable doing an LEO’s job don’t be a cop.

The department is trying to set precedent and create law that removes other individuals personal rights under the guise it will make my job safer. When what they really mean is it will make it easier for me to harass them them and threaten them because it is illegal for them to live stream the stop.

Blah f**kin' blah...

Let me say it again... I was not commenting on the issue raised in the OP. It's complicated and there are valid arguments on both sides. Your comment about being afraid to make a stop due to repercussions was the only thing I was commenting on...because it was ridiculously stupid and short-sighted. Especially in this day and age with the political and social climate in terms of disdain for law enforcement by so many people.

Not to mention there are any number of things that can potentially go wrong with making a traffic stop...especially when certain information might be known about the occupants of a vehicle...so most prudent and cautious officers might obviously worry about some repercussions. If you can't understand that I can't really help you.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom