no, the default is that it's legal to film within 8 ft of police.
All laws are inherently restrictive.
All laws are inherently restrictive.
There is no default. Court cases have upheld that it is legal for cops to establish a safety perimeter, even when that distance is undefined. Thus a cop could argue that the necessary safe distance is an arbitrary number like 25 feet or 50 feet.
This law defines it as 8, potentially giving you greater freedom.
The legal system as a whole is inherently restrictive, but individual laws within it may be otherwise.
No, this law establishes a new crime and penalty for being closer than 8 feet, without precluding enforcement under other laws:
" C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. "
Sousveillance should be a right of every single citizen. This right should be established and authorized.
In case it’s new to anyone else:
But for an even less theoretical example, state laws have explicitly legalized marijuana, for instance. If you’ve been in a state before and after (I have, as have most Americans) you saw your freedoms increase (and restrictions decrease) as a result.
I understand what you're saying, but this doesn't establish some kind of right to be within 8' of an officer and probably doesn't change the evaluation of most situations substantially.
Officers have a whole lot of reasons to want to keep the public farther back- Tueller drills, if I were scuffling with some dude I'd not want a potentially-hostile observer 10' away, standard training about perimeters in static situations, etc. Those don't evaporate, and they generally can be argued for even if the real motivation is preventing filming.
> But for an even less theoretical example, state laws have explicitly legalized marijuana, for instance.
Yah, I'm not interested in arguing the philosophical question of whether all laws are in some sense prescriptive-- nor of whether removing past restrictions counts as adding a law. I just don't think the AZ public is better off or more able to film with this new law.
While the maxim "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" generally holds true for individuals (but not organisations), it is not true that all laws are restrictive. See for example the first amendement of the US constitution which is restrictive towards the legislature and sanctifies rights for individuals or from a more international point of view the first article of the Declaration of Human Rights which states that all men are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Repeals, franchises, permits, etc may include restrictions, but you might be able to imagine circumstances when laws are not uniformly restrictive.
This isn't the case at all - law can be a precedent that something is permitted, for example.
Laws are inherently restrictive in the sense that things which aren’t prohibited by law, are permissible. So a law which codifies that something is permissible is useful for clarity, but it doesn’t really release citizens of restrictions.
So the law defining it as 8’ just gave everyone 17’ feet of freedom.
Also state laws can legalize something that was federally illegal, sort of. See marijuana legalization. (This is really technical and rests on the commerce clause and is debatable, but what’s not debatable is people can now open up a shop and sell weed without ending up in a federal prison whereas before they could not, so freedom has increased.)
A law, but not this law, which explicitly does not grant any right.
At nine feet away, this law has no bearing and the earlier precedent should still apply.