Hacker News Reader

Comment by colechristensen | Hacker News Reader

It also seems like a protection for recording the police. “The law says I can record you if I’m more than 8 feet away”

No more could police argue interference because there’s an explicit definition now of what is too close.

quoting the law, "THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY."

Right this is the problem. If it said the opposite, it would be a FANTASTIC law.

But you already have the right to record which has been upheld in court. Now in AZ when faced with a court argument that you were too close to the action you can point to a law that defines too close.

You can't really read laws in the negative. Laws only mean what they say.

You can still for example "interfere" and be more than 8 feet away and pointing to this law won't help you.

You are largely right, though one can apply the canons of construction to understanding a law's text, which sometimes can sometimes lead to inferences.

https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring...

> It also seems like a protection for recording the police.

This was already constitutionally protected. And this new law is likely going to be challenged on its constitutionality.

Obvious protection. Exception proves the rule.

But then the cop runs towards you and now everyone filming can potentially end up in prison.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com