“No, just that a member of the press has a right to record things that the rest of us don’t.”
I think it’s quite reasonable that, though our technology didn’t exist at the time the constitution was written, recording things is part of the essence of the press.
“I think the only reason that the press has ‘special rights’ is that there are many things/events that simply don’t have the room for everyone to attend, so the press sort of represents everyone.”
Not sure why you put “special rights” in quotation marks, which would normally imply they don’t actually exist. They do exist, though, since obviously the constitution singles them out for special notice in the first amendment.
“But that has nothing to do with what one can record in public spaces.”
Well, that’s what this decision said. And absolutely the press has something to don with recording (whether via cameras, notes, or perhaps just a reporter’s memory) events in public spaces.
“A few years ago some guy was caught videotaping underaged girls in bikinis at some Florida beach, and a judge said that since it was in a public place it was legal.”
Was this a constitutional issue? Was there an actual law the judge set aside because he personally thinks what happens in public is open season? Or did he declare the law violate simply because he didn’t like it, without reference to any rights whatsoever?
“And the guy who had a video camera on his motorcycle helmet and left it on after the stop, and the cop comes after him with gun pulled. And after the video went viral the cops hauled the guy back in for videotaping the cop while performing his duty”
I saw that.
“I believe that anything that happens in a public place in the US is, legally speaking, fair game in the US”
I believe such laws may be stupid and wrong, but what do you mean, “legally speaking”? To what legal principle are you referring?
“It is because we are all equal and one of the things that makes the US constitution a unique document.”
I’m sorry, but this is just mumbo-jumbo. No actual legal principle is involved.
—Was this a constitutional issue? Was there an actual law the judge set aside because he personally thinks what happens in public is open season? Or did he declare the law violate simply because he didn’t like it, without reference to any rights whatsoever?—
I don’t remember. I thought it was constitutional. What annoyed me about it though was apparently the recordings showed clear intent.
This is sort of related: I remember cleaning a friends old computer for one of my kids to use and I had to throw it away, partly because it was too old, and partly because of what it had on it. Sure, it had porn, but what I found repulsed me even more is that he had pictures of strangers (women in bikinis) that he had taken at the beach. Naturally they were not as graphic as the porn, but just the thought of what he had been doing at the beach gave me the creeps.
It’s a shame there is not a way to protect kids from this a bit better. And as technology continues to improve it is clear the day is coming where people will be able to easily record anything they want with crystal clarity. And if you are in the photos and cannot make the case of reasonable assumption of privacy, there is nothing you can do.