Topic: Supreme Court rules taping police is a 1st Amendment right (Read 2138 times)

This was not a mere "instance." This was a uniquely outrageous attempt to use taxpayer money to deprive taxpayers of their rights.  Stop minimizing please! 

Stop retreating from this specific situation into abstract generalities about what other people did and/or may do.  Take some Ritalin and focus FFS.

You don't get to decide that the only "real issue here" is freedom of speech.  It's possible that there are two issues, one being the 1st Amendment and the second being racial/gender affirmative action's serious negative consequences for the society that indulges in such PC discrimination.

By refusing to acknowledge any role RGAA may have played in this situation, you make yourself (and, by association, all of humanity) look like angry feminist Marxist black nationalist militants, determined to destroy any trace of meritocracy left in our educational/political institutions.

I chop up communists and feed them to Daisy, my pet pig.  So go play thought police somewhere else buddy.   

Cool, so you have one instance where a hispanic woman was wrong and a white male was right. I'm sure there are countless similar examples and also countless examples where the opposite is true.

You can take your pick of police officers or government officials who were white males and expanded government powers and the police state, and many who were simply corrupt or incompetent. Every chairman of the fed ever, supreme court justices who rule it's fine for federal agents to raid old ladies growing their own medical marijuana or for states to enforce sodomy laws, even police officers who've arrested bystanders for taping video. The biggest fascist/statist of the 20th century, who happened to be particularly fond of white males and resentful of minorities, was a white male himself.

But that's all besides the point, the real issue here is one of freedom of press and freedom of speech and not race, gender, or affirmative action. By turning it into an affirmative action issue, you're misdirecting your criticism and you make yourself (and, by association, all libertarian and/or bitcoin enthusiasts) look like an angry fringe lunatic. Don't just take my word for it.

I doubt anything I say will change your mind, which is a shame, but I just hope that people who think like you do are not associated with bitcoin or libertarian principles since they are an embarrassment to the movement and are likely to scare away the mainstream.

So opposing race/gender based affirmative action by highlighting its awful real world consequences is racist?

I disagree, and think playing the thought crime card is beneath you.

Your theoretical BS about 'white males who can score well on the LSAT' is beyond irrelevant and well into the realm of dishonesty.

The actual events that happened entailed an idiot affirmative action baby wasting tax money in a vain attempt to oppress the tax payers.

Despite your bitter, bigoted cheap shot at those most victimized by racial preferences and gender quotas, her white male counterpart in the next county, Jason Chambers, made no such asinine mistake.  

If he did, it would be a career killer.  Not so for the person who rose to occupy an office she was manifestly unqualified for, based on her attributes of spic=true and cunt=true.

Judges have no Constitutional power to "overturn" laws made by Congress. What should happen is that someone sues the government over violating Constitutional rights and receives a settlement if they prove their case. The people lined up in court to make similar suits would force the local statute to be rescinded. The idiots that made the laws would face re-election and no longer be around to make such stupid laws. How we got to the point where a group of un-elected lifetime appointees make the law of the land defies logic. The system is broken, this small victory notwithstanding.

+1

You were doing pretty well until the red. This turned what would've been a sharp but warranted criticism of a violation of free speech into a bitter, bigoted cheap shot.

White males who can score well on the LSAT are just as capable of trampling on people's rights and unjustly increasing the power of the police state.

The garbage in red also makes it easier for people to dismiss any sort of libertarian arguments as the work of bigots/racists.

I am curious if this has any application to the recent case I heard about in New Hampshire where a defendant was convicted of "wiretapping" for having recorded somebody without their permission (a school district employee on duty IIRC), and whose defense wasn't "I didn't do it", but rather, "I did it, but you the jury should nullify" (they didn't).  Apparently in New Hampshire, recording a two-party telephone conversation requires consent of both parties or else it's a crime.  The purpose of the recording as I understood it was well within what I'd consider for journalistic purposes as I believe the recording was made part of a YouTube video.

EDIT: here's a link http://rt.com/usa/news/copblock-wiretap-police-mueller-096/

Still freedom of the press.  Just because any random joe can go buy a modern version of a printing press for cheap or borrow one for free doesn't change that.

Indeed. And when you have American police and sheriff departments engaging in arbitrary and capricious prior restraint like this: http://obrag.org/?p=5688

... you know you are a subject of tyranny and the 1A (not to mention the rest of the Constitution) is printed on .gov toilet paper.

The idea is that anyone can be a journalist.  People do not need a license to be a journalist and journalism as a profession is not regulated.  This is the purpose of the amendment.  Anyone with the ability to transmit information can be a journalist.  Anyone can record another person on public property.  The laws in some areas that limited the recording of the law enforcement officers was restricted because it was claimed that it interfered with the duties of the officers.

There are plenty of videos on Youtube that show people recording police and getting arrested for doing that.  It is not because they interfere with the duties of an officer, but because the police department is trying to limit possible evidence for lawsuits on excessive use of force.

Too his credit, he did attempt to provide evidence for his assertion. It is the evidence that is in question. This is only racist in the sense that race is the evidence offered. I wouldn't go with the racist card here, but I agree that he screwed up a good opportunity for sending a letter that could have addressed politicians that oppose the right to self expression.

Agreed. But "freedom of the press" is a bit tenuous when it's your average man-on-the-street doing the filming. I would think "unreasonable search and seizure" or something similar would cover it but that would probably set a precedent for blocking something the govt doesn't want stopped.

accountability - enforced by videotape... is a good thing for all of us.

A little tenuous but I'll give you that one.

Freedom of the press.

I don't see how this is a first amendment issue (unless it was actually the publishing and not the recording that was at issue).

Of course, it absolutely should be allowed. Which probably means that there was a door the court didn't want to open by finding in favor for the *real* reason.

Again, you are confusing recognizing affirmative action's role in catalyzing the Peter Principle with committing some kind of thought crime.

This stupid person had no business being admitted to any law school.  That reality was ignored, due solely to the fact she is a spic with a cunt.

The white male state attorney in a neighboring county didn't make her asinine mistakes, because he had to work for his achievements instead of having them presented on a silver platter.  

IDC about whatever "most of of the people" strawmen you imagine exist.  They didn't waste tax money in a failed attempt to further oppress us citizens.  She did.

Again, you are attacking someone for their race and not their actions.  That is bigotry and it is also even worse when applied this way.

Her having a uterus or being Hispanic has not made her a bad states attorney nor has it caused her to read the constitution horribly wrong.  Other things have.  Most of the people who crap on the constitution are probably more educated, white and male then her. 

I am giving her no pass for what she did.  She sucks. 

Um, no.  Teh voters do not (directly) control law school admission processes.   

nice try at winning the "I'm a hero for sniffing a whiff of bigotry" prize though.