...while the Massachusetts law only bars the surreptitious recording of cops. It would have been nice for the court to come right out and say either way whether the Massachusetts law itself passes First Amendment muster. But it didn’t, I guess because it didn’t need to. The opinion says Glik clearly wasn’t violating the statute, which means his arrest was a clear violation of his rights. If he had been recording secretly, and were arrested for that, I’d imagine the cops probably would have been granted immunity.
Taking photos in public places is pretty iron clad - the recording stuff still feels a little 'iffy' to me.
26 posted on 08/27/2011 12:51:15 PM PDT by GOPJ
(126 people were indicted for being terrorists in the last two years. Every one of them was Muslim.)