Quote of the Day

[jpmassar]

“The right to record police officers while performing duties in a public place as well as the right to be protected from the warrantless seizure and destruction of those recordings, are not only required by the Constitution... They are consistent with our fundamental notions of liberty, promote the accountability of our governmental officers, and

Comments

[vizslas_r00l]

Which part of the Constitution says that there is a "...right to record police officers while performing duties in a public place?"

[jpmassar]

No part. Yet. Until the Supreme Court rules. Then if it so rules it will be the same part that made the Citizens' United ruling and that ruled that women have a limited right to an abortion, and that ruled about Miranda rights, and that ruled about...

[adb_jaeger]

Despite a First (?) Circuit Court ruling that this is a fundamental right, police around the country continue to stop people from filming and/or attempt to and succeed in seizing phone cameras et al

There have been some Circuit Court rulings against Obama-care.

Based on your logic, I assume that means it's not moving forward, right?

[jpmassar]

A) All those decisions have been stayed.
B) There have been opposite decisions in other circuits.
C) Neither is true of the this case, AFAIU.

I don't think you're unintelligent enough not to know these things, or understand the difference.

[adb_jaeger]

Exactly my point. Circuit court != Supreme court.

[jpmassar]

Circuit Court rulings that have no opposite rulings outstanding and that have not been stayed have standing for precedent.

The two situations are not very similar at all, which is the point you were trying to insinuate, and which is not at all logical.

[vizslas_r00l]

Agreed. My point was that the Constitution doesn't give anyone the right to do anything specific (as the quote in the OP indicates it does).

I think what torques me is that people make a lot of statements about what the Constitution says, without ever having read it.

[dmorr]

Wait, what?

You think that saying "the constitution gives me the right to free speech" is false because it actually says "congress shall make no law..."?

Or you think that because something's not enumerated as an individual right the constitution doesn't guarantee it? I think that would be a very surprising holding, since the constitution not only doesn't enumerate rights, but explicitly says that even if a right isn't enumerated it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[vizslas_r00l]

What I'm saying is that "Free Speech" (which is in the Constitution) is not necessarily the same thing as "you can film the police whenever you are in a public place" (which is not in the Constitution).

[dmorr]

Ok. Who decides what counts as free speech and not free speech?