• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal

Well within 25 feet. There's a give take here because you can't interfere with the police, or perhaps shouldn't under most circumstances, in the course of them doing their duty. Should they put a hard limit to it? I don't know, I think it's something easily abused by the authority and you need to be careful. You could likely get within 25 feet and still not be interfering with the police. So in general I'd be against these laws because we already have laws against interfering with the police, so it's taken care of. However, this law isn't about making the recording of police illegal in general, just within some set distance. Still would be against such a law, though.
 
If the drafters of the bill were worried about interference with police performing their duties the bill would call for a 25' perimeter excluding ALL people, not just those with a camera.

The bill doesn't contain an exception for persons being investigated by the officer so presumably a motorist stopped by the police could not legally videotape the encounter under this law.



Courts have consistently held that recording police in the performance of their duties is permissible under the First Amendment. Even if this was passed it likely would not stand a Constitutional challenge.
 
Within 25 feet.

I am a strong supporter in the public's right to record police officers. But I also don't have a problem with giving the officers a buffer zone to do their work. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on what that distance should be.
 
The bill doesn't contain an exception for persons being investigated by the officer so presumably a motorist stopped by the police could not legally videotape the encounter under this law.

That is an important detail that needs to be clarified by the law then. Set a buffer zone for people with whom the officer is not interacting. If the officer is interacting with you then the buffer zone is waved.
 
Within 25 feet.

I am a strong supporter in the public's right to record police officers. But I also don't have a problem with giving the officers a buffer zone to do their work. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on what that distance should be.

What is or isn't 25 feet will obviously be up to law enforcement. They will most likely be harassing people that are more than 25 feet away. This is not about helping police do their jobs; this is about making it harder to make them accountable for their actions.
 
Texas.....nuff' said.
 
What is or isn't 25 feet will obviously be up to law enforcement. They will most likely be harassing people that are more than 25 feet away. This is not about helping police do their jobs; this is about making it harder to make them accountable for their actions.

I don't disagree that the police will manipulate the rule. But that doesn't mean such a rule isn't justified.

I am the father of two young sons. One of my oldest son's favorite past-times is to lick his finger and stick it about one inch from his brother's face and when his brother protests he says, "What?! I'm not touching you!"

I can envision a situation in which an officer is trying to make a legitimate arrest and bystanders, with cameras or not, start getting too close for comfort. Close enough to be distracting. Close enough the officer may even feel in danger. Imagine a group of friends out, perhaps they just won a hockey game, and one of them throws a beer bottle through a car window breaking it. An officer sees it and starts arresting the guy. All of a sudden his dozen buddies surround him and the officer and get really close. They are yelling at the officer that their buddy didn't do anything and this is ****ed up and they start calling him a pig and everything else. Everything they are yelling is protected by the first amendment, as it should be. But it will be very difficult for the officer to do his job properly and communicate with dispatch over the noise.

"We're not touching you! We're not touching you!"

A balance has to be found.
 
I don't disagree that the police will manipulate the rule. But that doesn't mean such a rule isn't justified.

I am the father of two young sons. One of my oldest son's favorite past-times is to lick his finger and stick it about one inch from his brother's face and when his brother protests he says, "What?! I'm not touching you!"

I can envision a situation in which an officer is trying to make a legitimate arrest and bystanders, with cameras or not, start getting too close for comfort. Close enough to be distracting. Close enough the officer may even feel in danger. Imagine a group of friends out, perhaps they just won a hockey game, and one of them throws a beer bottle through a car window breaking it. An officer sees it and starts arresting the guy. All of a sudden his dozen buddies surround him and the officer and get really close. They are yelling at the officer that their buddy didn't do anything and this is ****ed up and they start calling him a pig and everything else. Everything they are yelling is protected by the first amendment, as it should be. But it will be very difficult for the officer to do his job properly and communicate with dispatch over the noise.

"We're not touching you! We're not touching you!"

A balance has to be found.

In truth a hard perimeter is probably less easily manipulated by the police. Right now the officer has complete discretion.

I don't recall this ever being an issue in the past, and, as far as I know, we don't have a raft of laws specifying how close bystanders can get to police. So what's changed? Are people with camera truly interfering with policing or are they threatening to policing?
 
Are people with camera truly interfering with policing or are they threatening to policing?

Yeah, they are interfering with their ability to murder U.S citizens.
 
Within 25 feet.

I am a strong supporter in the public's right to record police officers. But I also don't have a problem with giving the officers a buffer zone to do their work. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on what that distance should be.

my problem with giving them a specified buffer zone (any specified buffer zone) is that it then becomes a question of measuring the distance to prove guilt or innocence. also, a cop doesn't even need to charge someone with a crime in order to abuse the law. they can just start telling everyone to get back and that their filming is illegal, or use the opportunity to confiscate a camera before a person has had a chance to put the specified distance between themselves and an officer. also if you're in a small room this would essentially make filming the officer illegal, or if you were stopped at a traffic stop, etc.
 
Within 25 feet.

I am a strong supporter in the public's right to record police officers. But I also don't have a problem with giving the officers a buffer zone to do their work. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on what that distance should be.

Yup, you beat me to it.
 
I don't disagree that the police will manipulate the rule. But that doesn't mean such a rule isn't justified.

I am the father of two young sons. One of my oldest son's favorite past-times is to lick his finger and stick it about one inch from his brother's face and when his brother protests he says, "What?! I'm not touching you!"

I can envision a situation in which an officer is trying to make a legitimate arrest and bystanders, with cameras or not, start getting too close for comfort. Close enough to be distracting. Close enough the officer may even feel in danger. Imagine a group of friends out, perhaps they just won a hockey game, and one of them throws a beer bottle through a car window breaking it. An officer sees it and starts arresting the guy. All of a sudden his dozen buddies surround him and the officer and get really close. They are yelling at the officer that their buddy didn't do anything and this is ****ed up and they start calling him a pig and everything else. Everything they are yelling is protected by the first amendment, as it should be. But it will be very difficult for the officer to do his job properly and communicate with dispatch over the noise.

"We're not touching you! We're not touching you!"

A balance has to be found.

so you pass a law that makes interfering with cops illegal. if it can be shown that someone's behavior is meant to intentionally (or unintentionally) interfere with officers, then they can be charged with that crime. aren't those laws already on the books though?
 
my problem with giving them a specified buffer zone (any specified buffer zone) is that it then becomes a question of measuring the distance to prove guilt or innocence. also, a cop doesn't even need to charge someone with a crime in order to abuse the law. they can just start telling everyone to get back and that their filming is illegal, or use the opportunity to confiscate a camera before a person has had a chance to put the specified distance between themselves and an officer. also if you're in a small room this would essentially make filming the officer illegal, or if you were stopped at a traffic stop, etc.

Those are all good points. I would have to say that unless the law can be written specifically to address such concerns then it is best not to pass any law regarding it.
 
This topic was already made and discussed.
It does not make recording police illegal.
It makes certain types of recordings illegal.

what types?
 
I don't disagree that the police will manipulate the rule. But that doesn't mean such a rule isn't justified.

The rule isn't justified because there are already rules on interfering with the police. This is just something to give the authority a cheater-arm, a way to exert more torque on the People and hide their actions. The laws necessary already exist, they can't use them because they haven't been violated on whole by people recording. So they need a new law to give more force to government to use against the rights and liberties of the People.
 
Read the other thread.

or I could just continue the good discussion we're having in here and ignore your fly-by post. have a great day!
 
The rule isn't justified because there are already rules on interfering with the police. This is just something to give the authority a cheater-arm, a way to exert more torque on the People and hide their actions. The laws necessary already exist, they can't use them because they haven't been violated on whole by people recording. So they need a new law to give more force to government to use against the rights and liberties of the People.

Good point.
 
Requiring camera happy spectators to keep their distance is not only reasonable, but is imperative for the safety of the police officer and sometimes those he is questioning or arresting or giving a ticket to or whatever. In especially highly charged situations like the fight following the hockey game etc., the policeman often has multiple issues in progress and doesn't need to worry about who is crowding around him. It isn't much different than the police order to 'Move along, there's nothing to see here" kind of order to disperse a crowd that detracts from a police investigation.
 
or I could just continue the good discussion we're having in here and ignore your fly-by post. have a great day!
No, maybe the rules should be followed. They do exist for a reason.
 
As I noted above there is no exception for those being investigated by the police. That is a major problem with the bill and would effectively put us back in the "he said/she said" days when he - the cop - was always right.
And? Not my argument.
Making a blanket statement saying the bill would make recording police illegal is wrong as it doesn't.
It only make it illegal under certain circumstances.
 
Back
Top Bottom