Judge rules no 1st Amendment right to film police

[dead0man]

court opinion via philly law blog

"While we instinctively understand the citizens' argument, particularly with rapidly developing instant image sharing technology, we find no basis to craft a new First Amendment right based solely on 'observing and recording' without expressive conduct," Kearney wrote.


The ACLU is making an appeal, as they should.  I'm generally pro-cop, but they sure do a lot of sh**t to piss me off.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sounded like the judge was sympathetic, but declined to overturn what ey saw as Third Circuit precedent, which is appropriate. Said precedent needs to be reversed by the Third Circuit itself, or failing that, by SCOTUS.

[I’m not Stu]

In a different case, Diane Sykes made the correct decision that filming police is a 1st Amendment right.

[Cynthia]

In a different case, Diane Sykes made the correct decision that filming police is a 1st Amendment right.

Not often I agree with Sykes.

[I’m not Stu]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you agree with Sykes on this?

[Green Line]

Good judge.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This ruling runs contrary to a whole line of similar cases where the right to record police was upheld.  I don't know what the current status of this lawsuit is as this thread is nine months old, but this decision will be reversed.