{"id":204889,"date":"2017-07-11T21:51:34","date_gmt":"2017-07-12T01:51:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/court-recording-police-is-protected-speech-broadcasting-cable-broadcasting-cable\/"},"modified":"2017-07-11T21:51:34","modified_gmt":"2017-07-12T01:51:34","slug":"court-recording-police-is-protected-speech-broadcasting-cable-broadcasting-cable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/first-amendment-2\/court-recording-police-is-protected-speech-broadcasting-cable-broadcasting-cable\/","title":{"rendered":"Court: Recording Police Is Protected Speech | Broadcasting &amp; Cable &#8211; Broadcasting &amp; Cable"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    In a decision in a ripped-from-the-headlines issue, a federal    appeals court has held that recording video of police officers    in the act of performing their duties is protected First    Amendment speech.  <\/p>\n<p>    The issue is a hot-button one given the recent incidents of    officer-involved shootings captured on cell phones and other    recording devices.  <\/p>\n<p>    \"[T]he First Amendment protects the act of photographing,    filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting    their official duties in public,\" said a three-judge panel of    the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  <\/p>\n<p>    It was reversing a district court finding that recording was    not a First Amendment activity because it was not \"sufficiently    expressive.\"  <\/p>\n<p>    The panel said the case was not about whether or not the    plaintiffs have expressed themselves but about whether there    was a First Amendment right of access to information about how    public servants operate in public. The panel said there    definitely is.  <\/p>\n<p>    The case involved the Philadelphia Police Department preventing    bystanders from recording officers at an anti-fracking protest    attempting to make an arrest and\/or retaliating for the    recording.  <\/p>\n<p>    \"We ask much of our police,\" said the appeals court panel.    \"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. We thus reverse and remand for further    proceedings.\"  <\/p>\n<p>    Not surprisingly, news outlets had    weighed in in support of the plaintiff's appeal to the Third    Circuit.  <\/p>\n<p>    (Photo viaTori Rector's    Flickr.Image taken on July 21, 2016and    used perCreative Commons 2.0 license. The    photo was cropped to fit 3x4 aspect ratio.)  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Read more from the original source:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.broadcastingcable.com\/news\/washington\/court-recording-police-protected-speech\/167031\" title=\"Court: Recording Police Is Protected Speech | Broadcasting &amp; Cable - Broadcasting &amp; Cable\">Court: Recording Police Is Protected Speech | Broadcasting &amp; Cable - Broadcasting &amp; Cable<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> In a decision in a ripped-from-the-headlines issue, a federal appeals court has held that recording video of police officers in the act of performing their duties is protected First Amendment speech. The issue is a hot-button one given the recent incidents of officer-involved shootings captured on cell phones and other recording devices. \"[T]he First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public,\" said a three-judge panel of the U.S <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/first-amendment-2\/court-recording-police-is-protected-speech-broadcasting-cable-broadcasting-cable\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94877],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-first-amendment-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204889"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}