• 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

Really, so if you are stopped for a traffic citation and had a camera running on your dash to record the incident, yo would be guilty under this law.

That is not right.

As I mentioned in another post the buffer zone should be waved if YOU are the one the officer is interacting with.
 
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.

Exactly. This bill wasn't designed to prevent interference. This is just a great way for the police to seize footage they don't want publicized. "Oh... You are less than 25 feet away. I will arrest you and seize your camera as evidence.
 
Photography is not a crime.
 
Didn't the supreme court already decide this issue?
 
How come only Republicans in these wacky states come up with these unconstitutional and counter productive ideas?? Is this bill intended to shield police even more from harassing and killing innocent people? What other purpose does it serve. The cops have the guns right??
 
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.

Good point.
 
Except for the language of the bill that outlaws recording of police under the circumstances spelled out within.

"Huffington Post troll" ??????
Except for the language of the bill that outlaws recording of police under the circumstances spelled out within.
It is already illegal to record police while they are in certain situations so is it your opinion that we should be able to follow cops into the rest room and record them in there, even though we can't record other people in there?
I guess that you would agree that other public decency laws make it illegal to record cops...

"Huffington Post troll" ??????
The internet is full of trolls hired by the far left slim like George Soros to post crap like this and many forum sites give them leave to post deceptive titles like this one so that is all they do all daylong.
Many of the trolls drop their bag of crap and then run away holding their noses.


It is not illegal to video police officers in the state of Texas. Is it? And this bill would not make it illegal to video tape cops from a reasonable distance, would it??

We have all seen cases where as many as ten people were crowded around the cop with their phones as he tried to manage the situation. Most cameras have zoom functions so there is no need to get closer than 25 feet if you want to record the cop's actions.
 
It is already illegal to record police while they are in certain situations so is it your opinion that we should be able to follow cops into the rest room and record them in there, even though we can't record other people in there? I guess that you would agree that other public decency laws make it illegal to record cops...


Laws already on the books address this. Why do we need special restrictions on those with mobile phones and the camera ON, versus those with mobile phones and the camera OFF? Other than the obvious - cops don't like being filmed.

The internet is full of trolls hired by the far left slim like George Soros to post crap like this and many forum sites give them leave to post deceptive titles like this one so that is all they do all daylong. Many of the trolls drop their bag of crap and then run away holding their noses.

It is not illegal to video police officers in the state of Texas. Is it? And this bill would not make it illegal to video tape cops from a reasonable distance, would it??

We have all seen cases where as many as ten people were crowded around the cop with their phones as he tried to manage the situation. Most cameras have zoom functions so there is no need to get closer than 25 feet if you want to record the cop's actions.

25 feet means you can't record your own interactions with police. Convenient, for cops!

If you're carrying a gun, it's 100 feet. If the action is inside, that means you're probably outside. Good luck with that zoom going through doors and walls.... :roll:

And if you're in your car, police stop you, and your wife is in the passenger seat. If she records you getting drug out of the car and beaten, she's a criminal and faces 6 months in jail, a year if she's got a legal firearm in her purse. Glad you're OK with that, but the rest of the sane world sees it for the terrible law it is. What the law should do is go the other way and provide explicit protections to those recording interactions with the police, instead of singling out those individuals for special restrictions.
 
As I mentioned in another post the buffer zone should be waved if YOU are the one the officer is interacting with.

But that's not enough. If you and three buddies are in a car, and the driver is stopped, any of you should be able to record the stop without committing a crime. If you see someone on the street getting beaten, no need to pace off up to 100 feet to record the action. It's a simple matter to come up with scenarios where that's not possible to do and record the event - alley, hallway, public bathroom, very crowded street where 25 feet or 100 feet means people between you and the event, etc.

There is no need for any law other than the one on the books preventing ANYONE from interfering with police doing their job. I see no way to justify special restrictions for those with a mobile phone camera ON, versus those with their mobile phone camera OFF.

If you support the law, you must conclude that citizens recording interactions with police are something to be discouraged, not encouraged. Seems obvious we should want MORE of these recordings, not less (unless you're a cop), and naturally it was police groups that drafted this legislation....
 
Last edited:
Which means the blanket statement is wrong.
As I stated.
True a select few would be permitted to video events.
Why do the Police need this? Laws are in pace where an officer can direct bystanders away from an incident.
This would prevent certain events where Police Officer(s) over the line-Legally or by departmental regulations from being held to account.
 
Which means the blanket statement is wrong.
As I stated.

Most of us have moved on from discussing the headline (a topic for the "Bias in the Media" forum) to the fatal flaws of the proposed legislation, or merits of it if you'd care to defend the bill.
 
It is important that the bill has not yet been put to a vote, and is subject to amendment after the extensive public debate in the media, on message boards, and on social networks like Twitter.

The full text of the Texas penal code affected by the proposed amendment:
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 38. OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION

The full proposed text of the amendment to the Penal code:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/HB02918I.pdf#navpanes=0

Jason Villaba who introduced the bill in the Texas legislature defends it on Twitter:
Texas Bill Makes it a Crime to Photograph Police From Within 25 Feet of Them

It is a reasonable bill to keep people from crowding the police officer trying to get pictures whether those be the Paparazzi or just ordinary citizens eager for a 'personal scoop' or something like that. It also provides some protection for the person stopped for a traffic offense or whatever who almost certainly would not appreciate his/her photo plastered all over whatever. The issue of photographing from inside the car when stopped for questioning or ticketing by the police or otherwise those already there or those involved in the incident can be corrected by a simple correction of the language in the bill.

To me, it would make sense for it to apply to everybody and not just those with cameras.

Why not suggest that instead of the silly drum beat that the police want this law so they can abuse power?
 
It is important that the bill has not yet been put to a vote, and is subject to amendment after the extensive public debate in the media, on message boards, and on social networks like Twitter.

The full text of the Texas penal code affected by the proposed amendment:
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 38. OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION

The full proposed text of the amendment to the Penal code:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/HB02918I.pdf#navpanes=0

Jason Villaba who introduced the bill in the Texas legislature defends it on Twitter:
Texas Bill Makes it a Crime to Photograph Police From Within 25 Feet of Them

It is a reasonable bill to keep people from crowding the police officer trying to get pictures whether those be the Paparazzi or just ordinary citizens eager for a 'personal scoop' or something like that. It also provides some protection for the person stopped for a traffic offense or whatever who almost certainly would not appreciate his/her photo plastered all over whatever. The issue of photographing from inside the car when stopped for questioning or ticketing by the police or otherwise those already there or those involved in the incident can be corrected by a simple correction of the language in the bill.

To me, it would make sense for it to apply to everybody and not just those with cameras.

Why not suggest that instead of the silly drum beat that the police want this law so they can abuse power?
What does this bill do that existing laws cannot?
 
What does this bill do that existing laws cannot?

It gives the police officers a reasonable distance to move crowds back from whatever the police action is. Where it goes wrong is in specifically targeting photographers instead of everybody. Almost certainly it was motivated by people with cell phone or other cameras trying to get close in on the action, but again, that is an easy fix by simply amending the language in the law to include everybody and not just photographers. If you read those tweets, in my third link, the intent was not to prevent photography of police actions. I think Villaba just didn't think through the problem of having a camera running by somebody already at the scene and how the law as proposed could make a 'criminal' of that person.
 
It gives the police officers a reasonable distance to move crowds back from whatever the police action is. Where it goes wrong is in specifically targeting photographers instead of everybody. Almost certainly it was motivated by people with cell phone or other cameras trying to get close in on the action, but again, that is an easy fix by simply amending the language in the law to include everybody and not just photographers. If you read those tweets, in my third link, the intent was not to prevent photography of police actions. I think Villaba just didn't think through the problem of having a camera running by somebody already at the scene and how the law as proposed could make a 'criminal' of that person.
Regardless how it's defended, the fact that it targets photographers suggests to me that it has absolutely nothing to do with safety and/or ability to do their work, and everything to do with discouraging filming. Plus, there are already laws on the books that require people to not interfere, so this legislation is wholly unnecessary.
 
It is a reasonable bill to keep people from crowding the police officer trying to get pictures whether those be the Paparazzi or just ordinary citizens eager for a 'personal scoop' or something like that. It also provides some protection for the person stopped for a traffic offense or whatever who almost certainly would not appreciate his/her photo plastered all over whatever. The issue of photographing from inside the car when stopped for questioning or ticketing by the police or otherwise those already there or those involved in the incident can be corrected by a simple correction of the language in the bill.

To me, it would make sense for it to apply to everybody and not just those with cameras.

Why not suggest that instead of the silly drum beat that the police want this law so they can abuse power?

All we can evaluate is what was proposed, and the proposal amended a law that already made it illegal to interfere with police, and added a provision that made it a presumed violation of that law just for photographing or recording the police within 25 or 100 feet. So the target is clearly those RECORDING the police. Not bystanders in general - ONLY those with cameras turned on.

If there is some evidence the existing law doesn't adequately allow officers to do their job, then present that argument. No one has done so yet that I've seen.
 
What's really bull**** here is that anyone carrying a gun has to be 100 feet away from the incident, pretty much nullifying a good part of the adult population's ability to accurately video the incident.

"Hey, you get to decide....videotape for justice's sake or risk losing your right to own and carry a firearm?" Nice.:roll:
 
Also interesting...both here on the forum and what I took away from the proposed legislation, is that the assumption is the video's are for capturing police wrong-doing.

When it's just as likely as such video can exonerate falsely accused cops.
 
What's really bull**** here is that anyone carrying a gun has to be 100 feet away from the incident, pretty much nullifying a good part of the adult population's ability to accurately video the incident.

"Hey, you get to decide....videotape for justice's sake or risk losing your right to own and carry a firearm?" Nice.:roll:
I have it on good authority that bullets are useless beyond 80 feet.
 
Regardless how it's defended, the fact that it targets photographers suggests to me that it has absolutely nothing to do with safety and/or ability to do their work, and everything to do with discouraging filming. Plus, there are already laws on the books that require people to not interfere, so this legislation is wholly unnecessary.

But what it suggests and what the reasoning was may in fact be two different things. If the congressman was simply addressing the frustration with Papparazzi or other pushy photographers he might have been focused on that. It seems unlikely that a Texas congressman would be pushing legislation intended to enable police officers in abuse of power.
 
All we can evaluate is what was proposed, and the proposal amended a law that already made it illegal to interfere with police, and added a provision that made it a presumed violation of that law just for photographing or recording the police within 25 or 100 feet. So the target is clearly those RECORDING the police. Not bystanders in general - ONLY those with cameras turned on.

If there is some evidence the existing law doesn't adequately allow officers to do their job, then present that argument. No one has done so yet that I've seen.

Again it might have been legislation that was not completely thought through--it was intended to give police officers relief from those who were constantly crowding in to get video and audio and, having a family member who is a police officer--NEVER accused of any sort of misconduct--I am informed that this has become an increasing problem. It does NOT make it illegal to photograph police officers--it just makes it illegal to get in their face to do it. But, the law has not come up for a vote and I figure if it does, it will be in amended form to address the issues the public is having with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom