[Scan-DC] Gazette editorial on journalist's arrest

[Brooks, Kurt]

I am at work and don't have a chance to give this my full attention so here is an abbreviated response:  Yes police have been trying to claim wiretap when videotaped, but it doesn't hold water in court. The relevent law that allows videotaping goes as follows - in public areas no-one has an inherent right to privacy. Furthermore, when a video camera is being obviously used, anyone who speaks is giving de facto permission to record their voice & image, and I don't have to ask permission to use it or erase it upon request. 

This applies to journalism and private use; commercial (for profit) use is a different beast altogether. That's where building owners try to protect their image and that kind of thing. 

Key points: obvious recording, public areas, no problem. 

That's what our lawyers tell us and that's the way it's always been. 

Rights are like muscles: you have to flex them to keep them strong. 


----- Original Message -----
From: michael rumberg [mailto:m_c_rumberg at hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 02:17 PM
To: oldsdoug at hotmail.com <oldsdoug at hotmail.com>; scan-dc at mailman.qth.net <scan-dc at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Scan-DC] Gazette editorial on journalist's arrest


the article is pretty good but unfortunately ends with information out of context:

 David Rocah, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union 
of Maryland told The Gazette. “Independent of the First Amendment 
issues, there are no state laws that prohibit any of those things. 
There’s no law that prohibits photographing a police officer; no law 
that prohibits videotaping a police officer.”

He is correct as far as "photography" goes - however, videotaping is something altogether different.  Most video recording devices also capture audio.  But most states have laws that prohibit the interception of private conversation to which one is not a party.  And it is that audio content part on which police departments hang their hats when confiscating and charging people for videotaping them.  

My understanding is that this is why when you see TV news footage of events it is usually without audio - and that the newscasters provide voice-over.  Perhaps Kurt Brooks can shed some insight into this and maybe how professional TV news crews have been instructed? 

I suspect that had that journo in questions only been taking still photographs the cops wouldnt have been happy but wouldnt have been able to do anything.

Until laws get changed to allow the recording of conversations of public officials performing their duties in public, my suggestion is that cell phone and video recording device manufacturers should include a button that allows the user to cancel the audio recording.  Police will continue to meet out some street justice and possibly confiscate the device and memory but when its proven that there is no audio portion on the recording, then they will have to give it back.  

Ironically, police are allowed to audio record our interaction with them without permission, but we cant record our interaction with them without permission.


> From: oldsdoug at hotmail.com
> To: scan-dc at mailman.qth.net
> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:36:30 -0500
> Subject: [Scan-DC] Gazette editorial on journalist's arrest
> 
> 
> Below is a link to an editorial in the Gazette newspapers concerning the arrest of the journalist from Kensington:
> 
> http://www.gazette.net/article/20120125/OPINION/701259491/-1/a-journalist-s-arrest-and-the-public-s-right-to-know-about-the-police&template=gazette
> 
> There has been some related discussion here.
> 
> DK
>  		 	   		  
 		 	   		  
______________________________________________________________
Scan-DC mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/scan-dc
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:Scan-DC at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html