• 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

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.

The most important "certain type" would be made illegal. That makes the bill a whole lot less innocuous as some would want you to believe.
 
No, maybe the rules should be followed. They do exist for a reason.

are you saying "No" to my ignoring your post or "No" to having a great day?
 
The most important "certain type" would be made illegal. That makes the bill a whole lot less innocuous as some would want you to believe.
And again. Not my argument.
 
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.

That was my first thought, and a passenger in the car couldn't either. Also, if you're in a small group and approached by police, them getting within 25 feet is excuse enough to seize cell phones to prevent "illegal" taping. In a lot of houses, it's nearly impossible to be in the same room as someone else AND 25 feet away, so any encounter in that kind of space is 'illegal' to record. And in any really crowded space, 25 feet means out of view of the camera. Plus, for the gun nuts, the limit is 100 feet if you're legally carrying! :shock:

Terrible idea all the way around, especially since it amends a bill that already prohibits interfering with a police officer doing his duty. Hopefully this dies in committee like most such boneheaded legislation.

FWIW, here's an interview with him about the bill: Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal

What his bill IS aimed at, Villalba said, are cop-watch groups that consist of “agitators posing as journalists in order to interfere” with officers doing their job.

“They follow the police scanner, and as soon as they hear about an arrest,” he said, “they immediately get in the vicinity of the officer and start taunting the officer while the arrest is occurring.”

Villalba said representatives of the Dallas Police Association and a state peace officers’ group approached him about a bill that could give cops on the street a established camera-free zone (except for media) so cops could go about their jobs.

Not persuasive. Cops don't like getting filmed, and some of those filming might be rude. That's too bad....
 
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.

But it is fundamentally different because it singles out those recording the event (e.g. a cell phone with the camera or microphone on) versus everyone else (e.g. someone with a cell phone out, but the camera OFF). The law being amended already prohibits interfering with a police officer doing his duty. This adds a presumption that anyone RECORDING WITH A CAMERA/MIC within 25 feet IS interfering, and those without cameras would be held to a different standard. There is no way I know of to justify that. Besides, if you're legally carrying a weapon, the line is 100 feet IF YOU HAVE A CAMERA TURNED ON, but if not you can presumably be carrying and get as close as you want so long as you don't run afoul of the general prohibition against police interference.
 
You can record anyone and anything you want in public space.
 
This topic was already made and discussed.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/219304-republican-wants-shred-1st-amendment.html

It does not make recording police illegal.
It makes certain types of recordings illegal.

Correct. It would be illegal to record any interaction with police if you're the suspect, and all traffic stops, since those would all occur within the prohibited zone. If would prevent recording at all in a crowd, in a small room or house, would prohibit recording the police approaching any small group - within 25 ft police could legally demand all recording devices be turned off or face arrest and the phones seized. The potential for abuse is immense and for no purpose because the law it amends already prohibits interfering with police. It's a naked attempt to limit what can be captured on audio or video. No surprise it was pushed by police groups. Accountability is a bitch.
 
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.

Interfering with police duties is already illegal. They already have the law necessary to protect against this.
 
What is funny is the old argument that authoritarians use: "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong...then you have nothing to worry about"

Sounds like cops worry about getting caught doing something wrong.
 
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.

Sounds about right. Give them room to do their thing and use zoom if you must. I don't get gawking at all, no matter how close or far.
 
Nah - no such law is needed. As was already said interfering with police is already illegal. I would actually go the other way and put out a law that provides a minimal set of protections for those filming law enforcement.
 
Sounds about right. Give them room to do their thing and use zoom if you must. I don't get gawking at all, no matter how close or far.

Was the SC shooting filmed from more than 25 feet?
 
Personally, I support the rights of individuals to video any public official in the performance of their duties, whatever they may be. As long as the individual does not interfere with those duties nor incites others to interfere in those duties, no harm is done and often great benefit can accrue. The case in South Carolina is a case in point. Without the citizen video, the dishonest actions of the officer would never have come to light or be believed. While the officer's dash cam shows how the incident originated and how the dead victim bolted from his car and ran away, it does not show the end result. If only the dash cam was available, the officer would have a good case and ability to rationalize his actions. I don't know the rules of engagement in all jurisdictions, but in many a fleeing suspect may be brought down with force. If not for the citizen's video, we wouldn't know that the officer tried to plant evidence -placing his taser beside the body of the victim - and his story may have been believed.
 
Yes. Its OBVIOUSLY more than 25 ft.

Perhaps in this case, but there are already laws that prevent interfering with police, so why do we need another law for the same thing?

More and more government with you folk, it's baffling some times.
 
Seems like a legitimate reason to flee or run from the police.

If someone is recording from over 25 feet away and the police begin to approach them(person filming), wouldn't that person be adhering to the law by fleeing or "keeping their distance" ?

Seems like a catch 22.

Are these the same lawmakers here:

Playing whack-a-mole on their voting machines/deciding on whether to vaccinate you all ?

:thinking
 
I don't think it matters how far away the SC shooting was filmed. There have been plenty of instances of police brutality/murder filmed at less than 25 feet. To imply this doesn't hinder our ability to hold police accountable is absurd. Not to mention that police WILL abuse this law and harass people more than 25 feet away. The officer's word usually wins in court. If somebody is interfering with their ability to do their job that is one thing, but simply recording their activity would not do that. If they're so afraid of being recorded maybe they should start following the law.
 
How can one record wrongdoing within ones own home? Why cant citizens police the police?
 
Yes. Its OBVIOUSLY more than 25 ft.

I was asking because I wasn't sure, didn't see any discussion of the length.

No need to get all snotty Fenton.
 
25 feet buffer is all it is.

nuff' said.

Unless you're carrying a gun, then it's 100 feet.

And that means you can't record your own interaction with police, any traffic stop, any incident in a very crowded room or small room. If you're with a group, all it takes is an officer coming toward you to justify him seizing all recording devices (e.g. your phone) or you face arrest and 6 months in jail, a year if you're carrying a gun. If your wife is being interrogated, best make sure and pace off 10 yards, so you can record it, and then hope the cop doesn't take 3 steps in your direction then seize your phone AND arrest you for interfering with his duties, which is presumed if he walks into that 25 foot circle. And of course these rules only apply if you have your phone, presumably recording - if not, get as close as you like.

It's a terrible law and it's illustrative who supports this kind of nonsense.
 
I can see how American citizens carrying cameras is rubbing law enforcement a rash.
 
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.

If it's challenged. The blatantly unconstitutional asset forfeiture laws are still in force.

This is an attempt to silence the citizens who see cops acting inappropriately, pure and simple. It's already illegal to interfere with them doing their duty.
 
Back
Top Bottom