Here's Another Interesting Case Concerning the First Amendment

[user 51785]

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?

what you ain't understanding is what i already said. people there could tell other people where they are at then they will all come.

 

[TerryMiller]

what you ain't understanding is what i already said. people there could tell other people where they are at then they will all come.

But it still isn't necessarily because of the livestreaming. Suppose the traffic stop ISN'T in the hood?

 

[sklfco]

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.

 

[Chuckie]

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.

The scenarios that you mentioned in your comment are ethical rather than privacy issues. It is not illegal to televise some athlete grabbing his nuts in agony after getting hit with a 'cheap' shot, but it's not televised because most people agree that it is not ethically acceptable to show. The same 'agreements' would/should apply to things like injuries/death. There are ways to shame others into being humane.

 

[Gadsden]

The scenarios that you mentioned in your comment are ethical rather than privacy issues. It is not illegal to televise some athlete grabbing his nuts in agony after getting hit with a 'cheap' shot, but it's not televised because most people agree that it is not ethically acceptable to show. The same 'agreements' would/should apply to things like injuries/death. There are ways to shame others into being humane.

Please tell me you don't really believe that? For most of us I'd agree however, the lowlife's looking for their claim to fame by posting, what they hope will be the next viral video, depicting some tragedy affecting someone else are another thing. Most of them have no ethics and probably couldn't even spell it. Being humane is the last thing on their mind(s). They couldn't care less about who their thoughtless actions may effect, it's all about them. Case in point the scum who will stand around and record a rape in progress never even thinking to lift a finger to help the victim.

 

[HoJoe1977]

References to “hood”, “turds”, “lowlifes” ect says a lot. I’m new to this site, I’ve read many disparaging comments referencing race, gender and homosexuality in other threads, is this typical on this forum?

 

[RockHopper]

References to “hood”, “turds”, “lowlifes” ect says a lot. I’m new to this site, I’ve read many disparaging comments referencing race, gender and homosexuality in other threads, is this typical on this forum?

It would be typical of the individuals you've seen making such comments. Try not to confuse individuals with "the group". Welcome to the internet buddy.

 

[HoJoe1977]

Very well said. I haven’t been here long enough to judge anyway. Think I’ll avoid this section for awhile.

 

[Gadsden]

References to “hood”, “turds”, “lowlifes” ect says a lot. I’m new to this site, I’ve read many disparaging comments referencing race, gender and homosexuality in other threads, is this typical on this forum?

Not everyone has a halo around their head, just calling it like it is and no reference has been made to race. If you see something you don't like ignore it or find a forum more suited to your taste.

 

[El Pablo]

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.

+10000000000000 the section you quoted was not very well thought out.

We shouldn’t stop x car, because it contains armed bad men… We don’t want to face the repercussions of bad men shooting at us… Who the heck would want police officers that think like that?