[marktwain]

A link to the complete ruling is at the site.

It should always be legal to audio or video record public officials in the public performance of their public duties.

[from occupied ga]

If the police have done nothing wrong, then they have nothing to fear from their actions being recorded. The police have recorders in their vehicles. They can’t have it both ways. If they can record us, then we can rcord them.

[School of Rational Thought]

It is for their own safety.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw."

I honestly believe "citizen journalists/bloggers will eventually save the republic by breaking the stranglehold the progressives have on disseminating the news!

[rockrr]

One tiny step back from the abyss.

[Hodar]

Ok, so recording the police in a public area is permitted.

What about recording security at an airport? Is the airport considered public, or would this be like recording security routines in a bank?

[celmak]

Not just Police Officers, ALL public officials.

[Buckeye McFrog]

It should always be legal to audio or video record public officials in the public performance of their public duties.

I have long been convinced that Pennsylvania's very restrictive wiretap laws were written specifically to protect politicians and their conversations with mafia bag men.

[MichaelP]

Bravo! That's one for true freedom!

Mike

[Tublecane]

It’s a bit of a stretch to me that anyone can be “the press,” although these days, when the cost of getting information out there is virtually zero, perhaps the distinction between them and regular people is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I don’t feel comfortable calling this a rights issue. Laws against recording public officials are stupid, but do we have to invoke the sacred and inalienable prerogatives granted us by God and Nature for every little thing?

By the way, what will this mean for all the various ways the real press is restricted? Surely cameras from legitimate and recognized outlets are routinely turned away by the authorities in different circumstances. Could a TV station claim banning cameras from court violates amendment one? I’m as tired as anyone of the slippery slope argument, but I truly don’t see where this ends.

[bamahead]

bookmark

[mo]

Good...one step away from We the People having WebCams in our state and Federal representatives offices.

[bamahead]

"Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[arderkrag]

Any public servant has NO reasonable right to privacy while in the execution of his duties. Privacy in government actions is anathema to a Republic.