Hacker News Reader

Comment by taurusnoises | Hacker News Reader

I feel like people in the US really need to hear these perspectives when it comes to laws. We're a bit boarish here in the states and seem to approach laws in this all or nothing kind of way (I'm too tired to point out examples). But, showing that a law like this can be tweaked or nuanced nto the degree where yes you can film cops and no you can not film pedestrians or people eating outdoors at a cafe, might level us up a bit. (And, then maybe also showing how you're also not going to get arrested if you're a tourist taking pictures of the Statue of Liberty and people walk into the shot. Saying that, cuz that's usually the next response in our wonderfully litigious society). (snark overload this morning)

View on HN

We should be very hesitant to create laws that we expect to be selectively enforced, because it empowers law enforcement to make all sorts of bad decisions in the moment.

This already happens with photos and filming despite the general presumption of legality. Adding a bunch of nuanced exceptions would make it much worse.

Understand that the way this works is that officers can stop you from filming at any time. Then later you might get a judge to say, “the officer had no legal right to stop you.” The officer goes “oops” and that’s it. Obviously you cannot go back in time and get the moment that you missed.

A clear, simple, well-known presumption of legality makes it a lot harder for a misbehaving officer to appeal to the concept of a “judgment call.” And it makes it easier for a judge to say “you should have known” and impose consequences on the officer.

There already are nuanced exceptions. Technically, recording someone having a conversation on a phone can violate wire tap laws, even if you didn't interfere with the device. You can record police, but you're required to be back a certain distance (8' I think). Many states also allow private recording, but only if you reasonably believe a crime of violence might be committed. Etc

Ostensibly, the officer is open to a US 42 1983 color of law violation since there are court decisions affirming the right to record police in public.

All laws are enforced selectively, AGs have full discretion on what they decide to prosecute and what to ignore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com