Supreme Court Not to Hear Recording Case from IL

S

sigcurious

New member
Link

The current direction of the law/case in IL is positive, in that the law is barred from being enforced at the moment and police are not protected from unknowingly being audio recorded during the course of their duties. It also seems that they're attempting to redraft the law to clarify/allow non-consensual recording of police during their duties, while retaining the rest.

The concern, to me, being that this case still has to go through the lower courts and the IL state representatives still need to finalize a new version. Here's to hoping for a further preservation of our liberties.
 
I like the direction of the result, but I'm not sure I understand how this becomes a free speech or privacy issue for the non-police officer.
 
It becomes a 1st amendment issue for people interacting with the police who wish to record the encounter or bystanders who wish to record a police action. Had the law gone into effect as currently drafted it would be a felony to record a police officer on audio during the course of their duties without their consent.
 
I understand what you are saying, but it isn't your speech the government is restricting. It's your recording of the officer's speech.
 
I do not recall at what point it was defined/regarded as protected, but photography and silent video are protected under the first amendment via freedom of speech. Audio recording has had no defined protection under the 1st amendment. This case will hopefully help define audio recording in a positive(IMO) manner as protected also.
 
It becomes a 1st amendment issue for people interacting with the police who wish to record the encounter or bystanders who wish to record a police action. Had the law gone into effect as currently drafted it would be a felony to record a police officer on audio during the course of their duties without their consent.
Click to expand...

The law has been in effect for years. It's just recently been ruled unconstitutional.
 
The usual argument against these laws--in my view the correct reasoning--is that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in acts occurring in public; it is no more a crime to record what is happening than to listen or view it as it occurs. There is no 'eavesdropping' on public speech. Phone conversations, by contrast, do bear a reasonable expectation that the conversation will not be overheard by others.
 
Quoting Woody:

I understand what you are saying, but it isn't your speech the government is restricting. It's your recording of the officer's speech.
Click to expand...

You don't get it yet. The right to record is linked to your first amendment PRESS rights - your right to gather info before disseminating it.

See, the right to a free press refers to a TECHNOLOGY, not a job description. So your use of "press technologies" is fully protected even if you're not a pro journalist - hence you have a right to own and use the computer you post here with, and a camera with which to gather info you disseminate on forums like this.

There are police agencies such as the NYPD who are still claiming a right to decide who "the press" is. Such positions are also in a state of collapse and the switch is fully "on" in the courts to reading the 1st Amendment "freedom of the press" as a technology as opposed to a job description.

For a more detailed look:

http://www.pennumbra.com/issues/pdfs/160-2/Volokh.pdf
 
Jim,

You don't get it yet.
Click to expand...

That's what I said Jim.

From the 7th Circuit opinion:

"The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording. The right to publish or broadcast an audio or audiovisual recording would be insecure, or largely ineffective, if the antecedent act of making the recording is wholly unprotected, as the State’s Attorney insists." Pages 23-24. http://www.aclu-il.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Alvarez_ruling.pdf.

It isn't strictly a freedom of the press issue. But I "get it" now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top