Tag Archives: First Amendment

Justice Department urges Maryland court to uphold citizens’ right to film police

Protesters filming police via Shutterstock

This is good news, coming from an administration that has not always sided with protesters on civil rights issues but this is a start…

The Raw Story

The Justice Department filed a statement of interest Friday in the case of a journalist arrested in 2011 for filming police officers in Montgomery County, Maryland.According to Politico, the Department affirmed the right of individuals to record police under the First Amendment.

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department filed a statement in Maryland federal court that argued not only that individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers doing their duties in public, but that those recordings are protected from seizure without a warrant or due process under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Department urged the court to uphold these rights and declined a motion to dismiss by Montgomery County in the case Garcia v. Montgomery County.

“The United States is concerned that discretionary charges, such as disorderly conduct, loitering, disturbing the peace and resisting arrest, are all too easily used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals for exercising their First Amendment rights. … Core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis for such charges,” the statement said.

In Garcia v. Montgomery County, photojournalist Manny Garcia is suing after an incident in which Baltimore police officers arrested him and confiscated his camera’s memory card when Garcia filmed officers arresting two men using what Garcia believed to be excessive force. Garcia informed police that he was a journalist and complied with all of their instructions except to stop filming.

Nonetheless he was placed in handcuffs and arrested. Police confiscated his camera, removing the battery and memory card. According to the complaint they also kicked him to the ground, taunted and insulted him, and threatened to arrest his wife if she tried to take his camera.

The ruling in the case will have repercussions for several cases nationwide. Police personnel are coming under increased scrutiny thanks to the ubiquity of smart phones. In most cases in which police departments have attempted to prosecute individuals who film officers, the federal government has ruled that the First Amendment supports their right to do so.

Politico’s Tal Kopan wrote, “Federal appellate courts have upheld a First Amendment right to record police in cases including Glik v. Cunniffe in 2011, Smith v. Cummings in 2000 and Fordyce v. City of Seattle in 1995, all of which Justice cites in its statement in the Garcia case.”

Comments Off

Filed under Obama Administration

Supreme Court Inaction Boosts Right To Record Police Officers

Score another one for democracy…

The Huffington Post

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court  declined to review a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocking the enforcement of an Illinois eavesdropping law. The broadly written law — the most stringent in the country — makes it a felony to make an audio recording of someone without their permission, punishable by four to 15 years in prison.

Many states have similar “all-party consent” law, which mean one must get the permission of all parties to a conversation before recording it. But in all of those states — except for Massachusetts and Illinois — the laws include a provision that the parties being recorded must have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it to be a crime to record them.

The Illinois law once included such a provision, but it was removed by the state legislature in response to an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that threw out the conviction of a man accused of recording police from the back of a squad car. That ruling found that police on the job have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Illinois and Massachusetts laws have been used to arrest people who attempt to record on-duty police officers and other public officials. In one of the more notorious cases, Chicago resident Tiawanda Moore was arrested in 2010 when she attempted to use her cell phone to record officers in a Chicago police station.

Moore had come to the station to report an alleged sexual assault by a Chicago cop, and says she became frustrated when internal affairs officers allegedly bullied her and attempted to talk her out of filing the report. Moore was eventually acquitted.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is planning a police accountability project in Chicago that will involve recording police while they’re on duty. The organization wanted to be sure its employees and volunteers wouldn’t be charged with felonies.

The 7th Circuit Court found a specific First Amendment right to record police officers. It’s the second federal appeals court to strike down a conviction for recording police. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that a man wrongly arrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for violating his First Amendment rights.

Continue reading here…

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Politics

Karl Rove Flips Out At Occupy Baltimore Protesters: ‘Who Gave You The Right To Occupy America?’

One can easily revert the question back to Rove:

Who gave YOU and Bushco the right to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan?

Think Progress

Last night, former Bush official Karl Rove appeared at Johns Hopkins University to speak as a part of the annual Milton S. Eisenhower Symposium. Rove soon discovered that he wasn’t going to deliver his right-wing rhetoric unopposed, as a cry of “Mic Check!” rang out among the audience.

“Karl Rove is the architect of Occupy Iraq, the architect of Occupy Afghanistan!” yelled the demonstrators. Occupy Baltimore had infiltrated the crowd and began chanting against Rove. “Who gave you the right to occupy America?” asked Rove to the protesters, apparently unaware of the Bill of Rights. As they repeated their slogan, “We are the 99 percent!” Rove petulantly responded, “No you’re not!” He snidely added, “You wanna keep jumping up and yelling that you’re the 99 percent? How presumptuous and arrogant can you think are!” Watch Occupy Baltimore confront Rove:

About 15 protesters were asked to leave and some were forcibly removed. No one was arrested.

Related articles

5 Comments

Filed under Karl Rove

Federal Appeals Court Suggests Rep. Chabot’s Town Hall Camera Ban Violated The Constitution

Think Progress

Last week, Rep. Steven Chabot (R-OH) banned ordinary citizens from bringing cameras into a town hall meeting — even having police confiscate cameras from citizens who dared to violate this rule. Bizarrely, Chabot still allowed reporters to bring in cameras and record the event.

Coincidentally, just four days after Chabot took this extraordinary measure to prevent embarrassing clips of him from appearing on YouTube, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit handed down an opinion saying citizens have a right to film police engaged in their official duties. The court’s reasoning, however, has very clear implications for Chabot’s camera ban:

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.” Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’” [...]

The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public’s right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press. [...] The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.

Chabot might take some small comfort in the fact that he does not reside in the First Circuit — Ohio is part of the much more conservative Sixth Circuit — but Chabot should not expect the right-leaning judges on his home circuit court to bail him out. As the First Circuit notes, at least three other appeals courts and numerous trial courts agree with their holding that government officials cannot simply ban cameras.

Moreover, Chabot’s case is weakened by his entirely arbitrary rule that only media may bring in cameras. While it is possible to imagine official government actions where no cameras should be present — a meeting of top-level national security officials, for example — Chabot’s willingness to allow some people to bring cameras and not others gives the lie to his already-weak claim that there is a legitimate reason to keep his town hall secret.

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized

More On Sarah Palin’s Facebook Comments “Scrubbing”

Lawrence O’Donnell brings up an excellent point about the hypocrisy of Palin’s claim of 1st Amendment rights while disallowing commenters on her blog to exercise the same:

Comments Off

Filed under Lawrence O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, The Last Word

O’Donnell Can’t Name A Single Democratic Senator

Oh my goodness! Can anyone running for public office, especially a United States Senator, be this dense?

Talking Points Memo

In a debate today hosted by local television station WHYY, Delaware Republican Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell seemed unable to name a single sitting Democratic senator. Asked which Democrats she would be willing to work with were she elected, O’Donnell paused for a long moment, before saying Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. O’Donnell acknowledged that Clinton is no longer a senator, but said she hopes to be on the Foreign Relations Committee and would be able to work with her in that capacity. When her opponent, Democrat Chris Coons, suggested O’Donnell couldn’t name any Democratic senators, she responded by shouting out the name of Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman:

MODERATOR: Give me a name, Christine, of someone in the U.S. Senate, across the aisle that you’re comfortable working with.

O’DONNELL: [Pause] Well, she’s not a senator any more, but I would definitely have to say Hillary Clinton. [...]

COONS: One of the real risks as we go forward, is that if we elect someone who literally cannot name a single currently serving senator in my party with whom she would work –

O’DONNELL: Senator Lieberman!

COONS: Someone who has no experience crossing the biparistan divide.

Watch:

Of course, this isn’t the first time O’Donnell has been stumped by a simple question. In a different debate on Monday, O’Donnell seemed confused about the text of the First Amendment, despite the fact that she has touted herself as a Constitutional scholar in the past.

For more on O’Donnell’s record, check out our ThinkProgress report: The Old Adventures of New Christine.

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Politics

Church and Stupid: Christine O’Donnell’s cocky ignorance of the First Amendment

Slate

Does Christine O’Donnell understand that the First Amendment prohibits federal establishment of religion?

Yesterday she challenged her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, on this question during a debate. Media reports on the exchange depicted her as ignorant. In response, conservative writers and pundits—Rush Limbaugh, Ramesh Ponnuru, and bloggers at National Review, the American Spectator, First Things, Right Wing News, and other sites—have come to her defense. They claim O’Donnell was disputing not the Constitution but liberal interpretations of it. In Limbaugh’s words:

There was a story that was written in such a way to make the reader believe that Christine O’Donnell did not know that the First Amendment prohibited the government from establishing a religion. … That’s not what she was expressing incredulity over. She was incredulous that somebody was saying that the Constitution said there must be separation between church and state. Those words are not in the Constitution.

It’s true that the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution. It’s also true that this was O’Donnell’s main point. But Limbaugh and her other defenders can’t hide what she revealed along the way. O’Donnell did express incredulity that the First Amendment prohibits government establishment of religion. It’s right there on the tape.

Continue reading…

Comments Off

Filed under Establishment clause, The Constitution

Glenn Beck’s Radio Rwanda schtick is transforming Fox News into an organization that promotes domestic terrorism

Planet Earth is the asylum to which the rest of the universe sends its lunatics. — Voltaire

 

It was a little amusing that Fox News contributor Wayne Simmons this weekend attacked WikiLeaks as “a terrorist organization that uses the First Amendment of the United States to hide behind.”

Talk about projection — for anyone associated with Fox News.

Because Glenn Beck has made it perfectly clear on his Fox News show this week that he has no intention whatsoever of backing down from his demonization and scapegoating of the Tides Foundation on Fox, even after one of his TV acolytes, ginned up by Beck’s repeated smears and attacks on Tides, engaged Oakland police in a massive shootout that wounded two police officers, en route to a planned terrorist attack on Tides’ Bay Area offices that no doubt would have left a number of innocent people dead had he not been apprehended beforehand.

Indeed, all this week he stepped it up: For much of the week, he pretended that the shootout hadn’t even happened, refusing to even mention it in segments featuring Netroots Nation panel remarks in which the planned terrorist attack was the de facto context. On Wednesday, as you can see above, he continued to smear Tides’ work by claiming it promotes an ideology identical to that held by the Weather Underground. Then on Friday, he made up his own “facts” in order to compare it to a sniper shooting in Oakland that had no known political component.

Make no mistake: Glenn Beck has been inciting acts of terrorist violence, and the Byron Williams case clearly establishes it — even though it is far from the first such case. It in fact was preceded by several similar cases in which the dehumanizing rhetoric, scapegoating and conspiracist smears promoted by Fox clearly played a powerful role in the violence that ensued:

Jim David Adkisson’s shooting attack on a Knoxville Unitarian church. Adkisson left behind a manifesto that repeated numerous right-wing talking points generated by Fox commentators and specifically cited a Bernard Goldberg book. His library at home was stocked with books by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage.

Richard Poplawski’s shooting of three Pittsburgh police officers, because he believed a conspiracy theory that President Obama intended to take Americans’ guns away from them, and he reportedly believed the cops had arrived to carry it out. Poplawski, a white supremacist, liked to post Beck videos about FEMA concentration camps to the Stormfront comments board.

Scott Roeder’s assassination of Dr. George Tiller. Roeder was heavily involved in Operation Rescue and avidly read its newsletters — which featured weekly pieces from Bill O’Reilly, including several attacking Tiller as a “baby killer” — and its website, which liked to feature O’Reilly videos attacking Dr. Tiller. Indeed, O’Reilly had indulged a high-profile and unusually obsessive (not to mention vicious) jihad against Tiller, resulting in 42 such attacks on Tiller, 24 of which referred to him generically as a “baby killer.”

The Byron Williams case was functionally a shot across Fox News’ bow: a warning that it is playing with extreme fire by allowing Beck to recklessly demonize specific targets and to inflame his audience against them by imputing the most extreme and nefarious motives to them. In the case of Tides, Beck has been claiming all along that they are trying to “brainwash your children” — a charge that always raises extremely visceral reactions.

If Fox allows this continue, then eventually someone — someone who eats, breathes and lives Fox News, as so many right-wingers do these days — is going to succeed. Eventually, someone is going to walk into (or drive up to) the offices of some group that Beck has singled out as being part of a nefarious progressive “cancer” that is “destroying America” — whether it is the Tides Foundation, or the ACLU, or the SEIU, someone at MSNBC, or from ACORN — and shoot the place up or set off a bomb.

And then not just Glenn Beck, but Fox News and all its affiliates, are going to have blood on their hands. And there will not be any hiding it or pretending otherwise.

Beck wants to pretend that all he’s done is “discuss” the Tides Foundation — but in fact he’s consistently portrayed them as nefarious key players in the progressive “conspiracy” to “destroy America from within”, and he’s cast them in a particularly slimy role: propagandizing your unsuspecting children. Is it any wonder someone decided to “take them out”?

We can talk until we’re blue in the face about how profoundly irresponsible Fox and Beck are being. But matters have reached the point now that it is necessary to call them all out as an organization that is aiding and abetting domestic terrorism.

It must stop.

It’s important to understand that the conspiracism with which Beck smears groups like the Tides Foundation is, as Chip Berlet explains, a powerful form of scapegoating:

Societal outbreaks of conspiracism are a distinct form of scapegoating in the political arena rather than an outcome of a paranoid psychological pathology. In conspiracist discourse, the supposed conspirators serve as scapegoats for the actual conflict within the society.

… By blaming a small group of individuals for vast crimes or simple evil, conspiracism serves to divert attention from the institutional locus of power that drives systemic oppression, injustice and exploitation.

As explained by Frank P. Mintz:

“Conspiracism serves the needs of diverse political and social groups in America and elsewhere. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power.”

Right wing conspiracist scapegoating not only identifies and blames elites, but also identifies and blames alleged subversives and parasites from groups that have relatively lower social or economic status. This is the classic producerist stance. Conspiracist allegation can also be used to attack the status quo by outsider elite factions seeking power.

Remember the scapegoating role played by electronic media in the Rwandan Genocide:

Due to high rates of illiteracy at the time of the genocide, radio was an important way for the government to deliver messages to the public. Two radio stations key to inciting violence before and during the genocide were Radio Rwanda and Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). In March 1992, Radio Rwanda was first used in directly promoting the killing of Tutsi in Bugesera, south of the national capital Kigali. Radio Rwanda repeatedly broadcast a communiqué warning that Hutu in Bugesera would be attacked by Tutsi, a message used by local officials to convince Hutu that they needed to protect themselves by attacking first. Led by soldiers, Hutu civilians and members of the Interahamwe subsequently attacked and killed hundreds of Tutsi.

At the end of 1993, the RTLM’s highly sensationalized reporting on the assassination of the Burundi president, a Hutu, was used to underline supposed Tutsi brutality. The RTLM falsely reported that the president had been tortured, including castration of the victim (in pre-colonial times, some Tutsi kings castrated defeated enemy rulers). From late October 1993, the RTLM repeatedly broadcast themes developed by the extremist written press, underlining the inherent differences between Hutu and Tutsi, the foreign origin of Tutsi, the disproportionate share of Tutsi wealth and power, and the horrors of past Tutsi rule. The RTLM also repeatedly stressed the need to be alert to Tutsi plots and possible attacks and called upon Hutu to prepare to ‘defend’ themselves against the Tutsi. After April 6, 1994, authorities used the RTLM and Radio Rwanda to spur and direct killings, specifically in areas where the killings were initially resisted. Both radio stations were used to incite and mobilize then give specific directions for carrying out the killings.

Glenn Beck is taking Fox down that road. It’s time for the network to pull the plug

Comments Off

Filed under Fox News, Glenn Beck

Thom Hartmann – Is forbidding mosques endangering religious freedom in America?

I’ve noticed that some in this country, usually the far right fringe element, would like to do away with certain amendments in the Constitution.  Of course the second amendment should be enshrined like  The Shroud of Turin to most of them.  However, the rest of the amendments are fallible and should be taken away as “nuisance” amendments.  Rest assured the 1st, 13th and 14th amendment would be among them, IF they had their way.

Comments Off

Filed under Religious Intolerance, Sarah Palin