How does this sort of thing happen? It's insanely dangerous when media channels just fabricate news that did not happen. You can see the effects here – the number of comments that are along the lines of "isn't the fascist police-state USA awful" is surprising. The statement in the headline is not even supported by the content of the article, let alone the judgement itself.
But again, the judgement wasn't at all about him filming public officials, only about whether or not the judge should've presided over the case.
But fake news sadly FTW.
The main question I personally have is if can I still film anything and everyone on public property or has this been curtailed in some way shape or form.
As far as I see it, the author of the article leads you to believe that 'public' means 'any public space' when in fact the court was ruling about filming in 'public proceedings', which is completely different.
It's very short because the appeals court ruled that the district court was correct "without opinion".
Where in "Akins also argues that the district court erred by granting the motions todismiss and for summary judgment filed by the defendants and by denying his ownmotion for partial summary judgment" is there anything about filming anyone?
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missou...
Page 14, sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 are the incidents relevant to filming.
With respect to section 5, Akins filmed in the lobby, was asked to stop, and the person who asked him to stop was told that he was in the wrong for saying so. Section 6, he wasn't allowed into a media event because there wasn't a ton of space and he didn't have credentials. Section 7, he was posting video to the PD's and the city's Facebook pages and they removed the videos.
These are discussed on page 34, last paragraph. Seems like Akins is more interested in retaliation charges, and that's what the court is addressing here. The "he has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceedings he wishes to" seems a bit out of place as I re-read it, but I guess it's just establishing a baseline? I'm not sure what specifically the statement is meant to respond to.
The only thing that seems like public proceeding is the media event, and so in that context the judge is saying that I can't just bust in with a smartphone and say I have a constitutional right to record the event.
How can you not want the glorious Mad Maxian apocalypse that country's inbred retards dream of? Are you part of the problem? Some kind of culturally inclusive transliberal? HOW DARE YOU! I HAVEN'T MARRIED MY SISTER FOR THIS!