Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oklahoma Governer Signs Bill into Law
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wawazat" data-source="post: 3565116" data-attributes="member: 35603"><p>I would assume that is the intent, however the wording doesnt confine it to that intent. The wording could easily be interpreted as anyone using their phone to record an unlawful act by a police officer that provides an image of the officers face, badge number, or other identifying information and then shows it to anyone else, they could be on the hook if the person they show it to then threatens the officer or calls for public action against the officer. The same would hold true if a video was released of an elected official discussing or doing something that might inflame a response from the public.</p><p></p><p>If it was instead worded to confine the intent to publishing these videos while also calling for the targeting of the subject of the recording, I could understand it. That is not the way it is worded though.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wawazat, post: 3565116, member: 35603"] I would assume that is the intent, however the wording doesnt confine it to that intent. The wording could easily be interpreted as anyone using their phone to record an unlawful act by a police officer that provides an image of the officers face, badge number, or other identifying information and then shows it to anyone else, they could be on the hook if the person they show it to then threatens the officer or calls for public action against the officer. The same would hold true if a video was released of an elected official discussing or doing something that might inflame a response from the public. If it was instead worded to confine the intent to publishing these videos while also calling for the targeting of the subject of the recording, I could understand it. That is not the way it is worded though. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oklahoma Governer Signs Bill into Law
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom