Image result for Federal Court Rules Citizens Have No Right to Film Politicians & Police in PublicContradicting the rulings of six other federal courts, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals annihilated free speech rights in upholding a district court decision stating citizens do not have the right to film public officials — politicians, police, and others — in public.

In affirming the decision of the lower court to dismiss, the Eighth Circuit effectively ended free speech activist Matthew Akins’ challenge to the Columbia, Missouri, Police Department, which he accuses of unlawfully stopping and arresting him on multiple occasions — though nearly all charges were later dropped — as he filmed their encounters with the public, in public.

Akins says the spate of arrests and harassment from law enforcement is brazen retaliation for the nature of his activist work — filming officers on the job.

As a journalist and founder of Citizens for Justice in 2011, a group committed to monitoring police for accountability purposes, Akins frequently stopped to record officers’ interactions with the general public — a tactic employed by a plethora of civilian impartial observation groups to stem an epidemic of police violence and veritable impunity in courts, so common to law enforcement officers who misbehave.

Judge Nanette Laughrey penned in the stunning decision Columbia Police officers indeed had probable cause to arrest Akins each time, and — again, contrary to previous rulings from six circuit courts —that “he has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceeding he wishes to.”

Attorney Stephen Wyse already filed an appeal on Wednesday for the court to rehear the case — originally filed against Boone County Prosecutor Dan Knight, two former Boone County assistant prosecuting attorneys, and several members of the Columbia Police Department — as he contended unequivocally, prior,

“You can’t target journalists because you don’t like their reporting.”

ABC affiliate KMIZ reports,

“Wyse took issue with Laughrey’s decision to stay on the case, despite his request she recuse herself. Laughrey’s husband, Chris Kelly, was the head of a city task force on infrastructure, which could have skewed her decisions in a case against the city, Wyse claimed. While federal law does call for a judge’s recusal, the appeals court said nothing in Akins’ case rose to the level of bias or prejudice against his case.”

While the topic of filming the police — of particular interest to law enforcement accountability activists, First Amendment advocates, and others concerned for decaying free speech rights — appeared in federal court before, Laughrey’s ruling goes against precedence established by the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, which decided the Constitution guarantees the right to film public officials in public settings, as long as recording does not interfere.

In fact, Judge Thomas Ambro wrote the decision for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar casecomprised of separate instances in which Philadelphia law enforcement actively thwarted the efforts of two citizens, Amanda Geraci and Richard Fields, to film arrests. Both sued for violations of their civil rights, and — like many other litigants — won.

“The First Amendment protects the public’s right of access to information about their officials’ public activities,” Ambro clarified, adding that access “is particularly important because it leads to citizen discourse” on public and private issues — an exalted exercise of that preeminent protection. The government, ruled the judge, is prohibited constitutionally from “limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.”

American law enforcement, on the whole, has not responded hat graciously to civilians whipping out cell phones and video cameras to record encounters in public — though filming police can indeed provide additional pictorial and audio evidence in the event of contention or disputation.

“Bystander videos provide different perspectives than police and dashboard cameras, portraying circumstances and surroundings that police videos often do not capture,” Ambro continued“Civilian video also fills the gaps created when police choose not to record video or withhold their footage from the public.”

Laughrey, however, broke ranks in a manner which could portend a precarious existence of certain First Amendment rights — rights which had previously been assumed by the public and averred in peer courts. States comprising the Eighth Circuit are Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota.

“The First Amendment is a core American value,” Wyse asserted in a press statement following the decision’s astonishing departure from precedent. “The right to free speech and a free press are central to our liberty and our ability to hold our government accountable. This holding of the 8th Circuit undermines the basic rights of Missourians and the citizens of the six other 8th Circuit states and undermines the First Amendment rights for all Americans.”

Reports indicate Akins — barring an unlikely rehearing in the Eighth Circuit Court — may indeed appeal his case to the Supreme Court. Because multiple federal judges have upheld the right to film police and public officials as a constitutionally-protected activity on multiple occasions, the ramifications of Laughrey’s ruling may not be as far-reaching and detrimental as appears now — but the ultimate litmus test seems inevitably poised for SCOTUS.

In the meantime, irascible law enforcement officers keen to prevent civilians from filming their activities would do well to remember two crucial points: recording public officials keeps them responsible and accountable for their actions — but can also protect them in situations of disputing claims. After all, raw video recordings — not police, officials, or citizens — have no need of mendacity and duplicity.

“We ask much of our police,” Ambro wrote in the July decision. “They can be our shelter from the storm. Yet officers are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions, especially when that discussion benefits not only citizens but the officers themselves.”

Laughrey, unfortunately, did not agree — and now the public has yet another constitutionally-protected right left dangling by a fraying thread.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2017/08/11/federal-court-rules-citizen...

Views: 223

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Karma when the US Supreme Court is able to find the ACA Constitutional anything is possible.  Our Courts are completely corrupted... they need a complete overhaul.

How Ron can it be done?

Joe

You asked how do we restrain our federal courts and justices....  Here is how:

Congress has the Constitutional power to ordain and establish all inferior Federal Courts... as they see fit. The Constitution (Article 3, Section 1, Clause 1) gives Congress the power create all inferior federal courts. Congress also has the power to abolish all federal courts if they so desire and too reboot the system... by establishing a NEW FEDERAL SYSTEM of inferior courts... In effect, Congress may FIRE every sitting justice by passing a NEW FEDERAL JUDICIARY ACT that redistricts the current system, ordaining new courts with the jurisdiction to hear all federal cases..  

Note; The current Federal Judiciary Act was created in 1789... it's time to replace it.

The Federal Judiciary Act can be used to abolish or realign the existing system ... It can ordain new courts, with new JURISDICTION to hear cases. The Congress can restrain the Federal Courts, limiting the types of cases they may hear. Congress must REMOVE the Inferior Courts (Districts and Appellate) from hearing cases involving sovereign States.  See:  Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2, which clearly states... "In ALL CASES affecting.... a State... the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction..."   In other words, no inferior federal court may hear a case that involves a sovereign State of the Union.  This provision of the US Constitution must be enforced.

Congress may place limits on the jurisdiction of federal courts by legislation/law... restricting inferior federal courts as to the cases they may hear. This may be done in the Federal Judiciary Act.  Example: the jurisdiction of Administrative judges, Tax Courts, and other Federal Courts, can be realigned, to fit within the original intent of our framers. However, Congress presently doesn't want to do this, as they USE the courts to legislate, by judicial fiat, items the people would otherwise fire the members of Congress for advancing. Congress wants the courts to act where it is political suicide for them to act.

The Point is that Congress under Article 3, Section 1, Clause 1... may ordain or abolish the inferior federal Courts  as it wills.  The inferior Federal Courts were meant to be the servants of Congress and the States, not the other way around. An un-elected Judge, of an inferior federal court, was never intended to have jurisdiction over a sovereign STATE of the Union.

It is time to reaffirm and restrain the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts...  There is no better or EASIER method to do that, than to remove, abolish, all of the current courts by redistricting them out of business, and then Congress and the President may reappoint or appoint, new judges, they deem appropriately restrained, to  the NEW FEDERAL COURTS.

Thanks Ron for the info. It sounds like the demorats are still in control.

Our public officials are taking on the trappings of a new age Aristocracy... impugning our heritage and their roll as servants of the people.  We must reverse this or become a totalitarian state.

While in the Navy I took an oath to defend the Constitutional of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I believe that you Ron took the same oath at one time.

Are you Joseph willing to live up to that oath? That oath means drawing blood, are you ready?
As Val Kelmer said when he shot Ringo in the head in Tombstone, " My hypocrisy goes only so far". When do we say enough is enough? This is our Republic not theirs to give away.
I am not attacking, I'm simply saying that we need to question how far any of us are willing to go with our oath. All of us took that oath and some on multiple occasions and believe them to be sacred, are we willing to commit ourselves to peaceful protest, or civil disobedience or civil war, are we willing to sit down with our US Representitive and discuss our anger or is it a waiste of time? The town hall meeting had a positive affect on the last general election maybe we need some focus there. I believe I have examined the subject of our oaths and the red line can move because we don't consider every variable also we have got to at some point stand our ground in defense and as example to our young people, they someday will be the Masters of the nations destiny. Since the assassination of JFK our nation has continued to decline. Our US military and the civilian effort was so great during and after WWII that the world respected America. Do we honor our past, do we honor our founders when they pledged their lives fortunes and sacred honor or do we just use these words to give temporary relief? I think we need to answer these questions on how far we go.

What do you think that I was trained for while in the navy??

Joseph...

I took the same Oath and I have not abandoned it...  However I am not suicidal.  We must organize and we need leadership with the resources capable of supporting a major, major, move to reform government.  Pres. Trump may just have both... but it will certainly take his resolve too pledge his LIFE, LIBERTY and TREASURE (money) to this cause.  

Until we have the leadership and resources to act... it would be foolish for us to rise up ... independently.  I believe Ben Franklin once said: "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately." That maxim applies today. We must first organize, we must hang together, or we will certainly hang as individuals.  

Know this... Any movement to restore Constitutional government may well be labeled treason or sedition by the sitting government... no matter how despotic that government may be... it is cloaked with the power of the Constitution and our laws.

It is now up to men like Pres. Trump to organize us ... too call on the People to DRAIN THE SWAMP in DC.  If he and his kind will not act... the common man is lost... as he has no champion to rally and support him. I am more than willing to do my part should the President call on me... but as an individual I don't have the resources to organize and support such an effort ALONE.

Yes Col. every effort to move in a peaceful direction must be pursued before an expedition of civil disobedience then civil war. War is last resort, the red line, we'll make progress we will not be enslaved. With freedom, nobody can be left behind, nobody. You can live in tight communities of your choosing without anybody losing. Our Constitution gives us these rights we have the right to throw off tyrannical government, if not we would be challenged for saying so.

I was relieved in the kitchen, wife and daughter n law are on a roll 21 qts canned. Probably 21 more to go. Constantly building the food stores.

God Bless America and the State of Israel

Live Free or Die

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Facebook & Twitter

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Tea Party Wishes You And Your Family
A Happy Thanksgiving 

Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

George Washington
President of the United States of America

YES PATRIOT STORE

© 2017   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service