Here's Another Interesting Case Concerning the First Amendment

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

TedKennedy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11,213
Reaction score
12,360
Location
Tulsa
coming from somebody who ain't done the job and don't know squat about it
I bet he can define a woman without being one, too.

You an engineer? I bet you want rules in place to make sure that bridge you drive over doesn't collapse.
But who the hell has any business telling an engineer what their expectations are if they haven't done the job?
 

Gadsden

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
9,943
Reaction score
30,361
Location
Somewhere west of Tulsa
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.
It still begs the question, where does ones rights stop and another's begin? Like OK Corgi Rancher, I see both sides and I agree both have valid arguments. But, does allowing some wannabe, looking for the next viral video, rights outweigh the rights of victims and their families? Honestly, I don't know. The answer is way above my pay grade.
 

Gadsden

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
9,943
Reaction score
30,361
Location
Somewhere west of Tulsa
I bet he can define a woman without being one, too.

You an engineer? I bet you want rules in place to make sure that bridge you drive over doesn't collapse.
But who the hell has any business telling an engineer what their expectations are if they haven't done the job?
God help us if he's an engineer. Just sayin' :pms2:
 

Johnny

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
4,872
Reaction score
807
Location
Fort Gibson
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.
I do not need your help understanding anything. The argument is that a passenger of a vehicle should not be able to live stream a stop because it may put the stopping officer in danger or make it difficult to do their job.

If the conditions where the stop occurred are so dire, or the officer is not properly backed up or equipped to deal with what may arise during the stop, maybe the officer should think twice about pulling that particular vehicle over in that particular part of town at that particular time of day. That was where my short sighted comment came from.

We are once again we are trying to strip law abiding citizens rights based off of the actions of the law breaking minority of citizens. We will continue to do so until we have legally defined everyone as a criminal.
 

TerryMiller

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
18,619
Reaction score
18,200
Location
Here, but occasionally There.
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.

Perhaps, but my point was that a flash mob was unlikely to occur BECAUSE THE MOB WAS VIEWING THE LIVESTREAM.
 

CountryLivin'

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 11, 2022
Messages
379
Reaction score
553
Location
Oklahoma
Perhaps, but my point was that a flash mob was unlikely to occur BECAUSE THE MOB WAS VIEWING THE LIVESTREAM.
you don't think they would STOP looking at the video to go harass the cops. you don't know much about turds and how they hate the cops and jump to have the chance to help some other turd and maybe even fight the cops. get a clue man. watch some videos about antifa and blm fighting cops maybe you will see what they do.
 

TerryMiller

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
18,619
Reaction score
18,200
Location
Here, but occasionally There.
you don't think they would STOP looking at the video to go harass the cops. you don't know much about turds and how they hate the cops and jump to have the chance to help some other turd and maybe even fight the cops. get a clue man. watch some videos about antifa and blm fighting cops maybe you will see what they do.

You are having problems with reading comprehension? Let me state it more clearly:

It is unlikely that a mob of people is going to be viewing the passenger's livestream to begin with, and even the people that "might" be in the vicinity of the traffic stop are not likely to be viewing the livestream. Granted, those in the vicinity might "gather" near the scene when they see it, but they aren't likely to be viewing the livestream. Even if they see the guy doing the recording, how are they to know it is being livestreamed and know for sure of the source for the livestream?
 

wawazat

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2014
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
2,053
Location
OKC, OK
you don't think they would STOP looking at the video to go harass the cops. you don't know much about turds and how they hate the cops and jump to have the chance to help some other turd and maybe even fight the cops. get a clue man. watch some videos about antifa and blm fighting cops maybe you will see what they do.
I understand the point you're making and there is always a chance, but I think his point is that there are a few too many circumstantial assumptions to try and write a law that is most likely in direct disagreement with the 1A to try and prevent it.

I think my stance after thinking this through is that no legitimate law should restrict an otherwise lawful action on the assumption it could bring about an unlawful action. The response I am most comfortable with is should that unlawful action come to fruition, all inciters and participants are made examples of the responsibility we take when we decide to livestream or otherwise risk inciting civil unrest.

This certainly doesnt imply I am confident my opinion is what is best for public policy, but it what makes the most sense to me.
 

TedKennedy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
11,213
Reaction score
12,360
Location
Tulsa
You are having problems with reading comprehension? Let me state it more clearly:

It is unlikely that a mob of people is going to be viewing the passenger's livestream to begin with, and even the people that "might" be in the vicinity of the traffic stop are not likely to be viewing the livestream. Granted, those in the vicinity might "gather" near the scene when they see it, but they aren't likely to be viewing the livestream. Even if they see the guy doing the recording, how are they to know it is being livestreamed and know for sure of the source for the livestream?
Wasting your breath, Terry.

It's become abundantly clear that some folks absolutely don't want video evidence that cannot be suppressed.

Reminds me of the groups that fought making bodycams required, and the groups that fought making bodycam footage public.

Oddly, it's the same bunch that fought to retain forfeiture asset laws.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom