South Carolina Senator Aims To Criminalize The Recording Of Criminal Activity
from the a-new-high-in-low dept
Here's how stupid legislation is assembled.
HOT BUTTON TOPIC + BRIEFLY CONCERNED LEGISLATOR - COMMON SENSE = A proposed amendment so brain dead, its author should be immediately hooked up to an EEG.
The "hot topic?" The form of recorded violence known colloquially as the "knockout game." Said "game" is played by a minimum of one willing participant and one unwilling participant. The goal is to knock out the unwilling participant with one punch, preferably while being recorded for posterity/evidence. Video is then uploaded to YouTube (or other services) for appreciation by those who like this sort of thing.
The legislator who apparently failed to consider the mind blowing amount of unintended consequences built into his legislation? South Carolina senator Vincent Sheheen.
The amendment? Well, here's what Sen. Sheheen would like to see changed in the current criminal code.
SECTION 1. Chapter 1, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:So, an amendment aimed at hauling in participants in the "knockout game" (the person holding the camera) will now criminalize all sorts of recordings. Sheheen pitches it this way:
"Section 16-1-65. (A) It is unlawful for a person to produce or create, or conspire to produce or create, a video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation of a violent crime, as defined in Section 16-1-60 [violent crimes], during its commission. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than five hundred dollars or more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(B) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (A) and who publishes, or otherwise makes the video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation available for public display is guilty of a separate offense and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than five hundred dollars or more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(C) A person who knowingly aids in the commission of a violation of subsection (A) or (B) or is an accessory before or after the fact in commission of the violation of subsection (A) or (B) is guilty of a felony and must be punished in the same manner prescribed in subsection (A) or (B), as applicable.
(D) The provisions of subsection (A) and (B) do not apply to:
(1) viewing, photographing, videotaping, or filming by personnel of the Department of Corrections or of a county, municipal, or local jail or detention center or correctional facility for security purposes or during investigation of alleged misconduct by a person in the custody of the Department of Corrections or a county, municipal, or local jail or detention center or correctional facility;
(2) security surveillance in bona fide business establishments;
(3) accidental or incidental recordings;
(4) any official law enforcement activities;
(5) private detectives and investigators conducting surveillance in the ordinary course of business; or
(6) any bona fide news gathering activities."
“Really this is another tool for law enforcement to use to make sure that somebody can't claim, 'Oh, I didn't commit that crime, I just videotaped it,' when in reality they were part of the problem in the first place."Really, this is another tool for law enforcement to make sure that somebody can't record police misconduct or use of excessive force. Sure, the person recording didn't commit the crime being recorded, but they have now committed the crime of recording criminal activity. If a law can be twisted by bad cops to prevent or seize recordings of their dubious behavior, it very definitely will be.
That's only one problematic potential consequence of Sheheen's Folly. Eugene Volokh has more, much more, in his take on the law.
So you see a robbery occurring, or the police illegally beating a citizen, and you videorecord it — you’ve now committed a felony, unless you can persuade a court it’s a “bona fide news gathering activit[y].” (The recording isn’t “accidental or incidental,” since you’re making it deliberately.) Or say your friend is being attacked, and you record the video to give to the police or to use in a civil suit; perhaps you even expected an attack, for instance if you’re going to a potentially violent demonstration or going past a place where thugs have routinely attacked people of some race, religion, or sexual orientation. That too is a felony.Sheheen's amendment is ugly all over. While it makes exceptions for "bona fide business" surveillance, it makes no such exception for cameras mounted by private citizens to protect their own property. Someone breaks into your house and you've got the tape to prove it? Guess what: both you and the perp have violated the law.
And while one could interpret any citizen action aimed at gathering information as “bona fide news gathering activit[y],” that’s far from clear. It’s an argument I’d make as your defense lawyer, but it’s not an argument you can feel confident about if you’re deciding whether to make the recording. If the law is enacted, any suitably cautious South Carolinian would be well-advised just not to record any crime he sees, if he wants to avoid the risk of prison time.
Volokh points out the problems inherent in proving newsworthiness to prosecutors. The same uphill battle awaits those with accidental or incidental recordings. Try proving that negative in the courts while facing a zealous DA.
Not only does this criminalize citizens' recording (and citizen reporting -- bloggers aren't journalists, etc.) but it has the potential to curtail law enforcement efforts. Stupid people record their own criminal activity all the time but putting this law on the books may make them decide to leave the camera at home. Sure, they're already committing a crime, but why add additional months to the sentence? Why would someone purportedly trying to be tough on (a certain) crime want to discourage the generation of useful evidence?
This kneejerk amendment also overlooks the fact that many laws are already on the books for prosecuting camera-toting friends of assailants. Like aiding and abetting. Or conspiracy to commit a criminal act. There are ways to bring the "cinematographer" down without putting regular, law-abiding citizens at risk of violating an astronomically asinine law simply because they managed to capture evidence of criminal activity with their cell phone or personally-owned surveillance system.
Then there's this:
…or other visual depiction or representation of a violent crime…Not only will it be criminal to record criminal activity, it will also be criminal to create a graphic novel depicting criminal acts, depict a criminal act in a play, movie, television show or YouTube video, or perform a classic Punch and Judy routine. "Visual depictions" of fake crime? Also a crime. Yes, these scenarios are blatantly ridiculous, but that's precisely what the law states. If Sheheen doesn't want people mocking his stupid amendment with scenarios no self-respecting law enforcement officer (and even some LEOs with no self-respect) would drop the hammer on, then he should have written his amendment less stupidly. Or not at all.
I now turn this over to the comment section, who should be able to top these "what if" scenarios in a heartbeat.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: criminal, filming, legislation, south carolina, vincent sheheen
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sorry, South Carolina...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, South Carolina...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry, South Carolina...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry, South Carolina...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
R.I.P. Youtube.
(Do I need to add /sarcasm or /ootb to this?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
(4) any official law enforcement activities;"
Seems you can still record police officers. Am I missing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ AC: You're missing the panicked yapping ankle-biter gene Techdirt fanboys have.
Seems you can still record police officers. Am I missing something?
Besides that, the crime is defined as having foreknowledge of a crime yet to be committed. But that wouldn't get the fanboys yapping.
Mike is a professional troll: he has no visible purpose other than to gin up controversy to draw eyeballs.
05:18:32[g-325-5]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ AC: You're missing the panicked yapping ankle-biter gene Techdirt fanboys have.
Where do you get that? It's certainly not in the statute, either as it stands or as it would be amended.
Or are you just making stuff up again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ AC: You're missing the panicked yapping ankle-biter gene Techdirt fanboys have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That section applies only to police officers themselves. That is, the police can "produce or create, or conspire to produce or create, a video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation of a violent crime," and the police can "publish[], or otherwise make[] the video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation available for public display."
The exemptions enumerate the actor who film, not the actors who are filmed. Otherwise, it would apply to filming "any bona fide news gathering activities," which is clearly not what the statute intends.
What's so alarming is that you don't need to be associated with the criminal in any way. The conspiracy charge applies to recording of the criminal act; not to the act itself. Unless you're one of the enumerated exceptions, you can't film any crime at all - whether you're filming cops behaving criminally, some random crime on the street, or even your own attackers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, you are missing something. Obvious case in point, BAD LA cops beating Rodney King. Is this an illegal act or official law enforcement activity? As it turns out, it was an illegal act....baaahhhh....you get to be convicted of a felony because you recorded it. Off to jail with you....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...
(4) any official law enforcement activities;"
Seems you can still record police officers. Am I missing something?
Cops beating up on citizens isn't an official law enforcement activity, so you'd get done for recording police violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Malfeasance
The law makers hope is that he can persuade the masses, based on bad events to pass a law pretending to stop violence. Again, the real intent is to make it more difficult to document malfeasance on behalf of law enforcement.
As we know very well, enforcement will push the limits of its power as long as far as we allow it and then some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Security cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Security cameras
> from thieves would be an official law enforcement
> activity.
Technically, no it wouldn't, as you are not a law enforcement officer or agency.
The author is correct, this is glaring legal hole in the law that could impose criminal liability on private property owners for having a video security system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Security cameras
I don't think so. "Protecting your person or property" not in the job description of the police at all, and at least one court has ruled the police have no obligation to do anything of the sort.
The police come in after the crime is already committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Security cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Security cameras
Your mentioning citizen's arrest is a case in point: while there is such a thing as citizen's arrest, it must be done in the presence of an actual law enforcement officer to actually count for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Security cameras
I realize I was making an argument based on a semantic interpretation of what was written that was contrary to the intended interpretation of the written words of the law. I was merely pointing out that it COULD be interpreted to mean something completely different as it didn't mention at all who was performing the enforcement activity only that the activity was official which can be argued that since you are specifically allowed to perform these duties in absence of an officer, they therefore could be considered official.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Security cameras
Kinda-sorta. Read up on this topic, it's actually very interesting. Citizen's arrest isn't what most people think it is.
Citizens have no arrest powers, so the police presence is required at the time the arrest is made.
You are authorized by law to defend yourself even when police are present. But that doesn't make it "official law enforcement action".
Colloquially, yes. But all of these concepts and terms are "terms of the art" and have very specific, well-establish meanings. They aren't actually open to other interpretations in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Security cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Security cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minion focused on exceptions rather than definition:
Besides that, case law is clear on the everyday uses. This applies only with foreknowledge to record a crime yet to be committed.
But thanks for good cause to use this tagline:
Mike Masnick on Techdirt: "its typical approach to these things: take something totally out of context, put some hysterical and inaccurate phrasing around it, dump an attention-grabbing headline on it and send it off to the press."
05:11:06[g-122-6]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minion focused on exceptions rather than definition:
Oh, you're making stuff up again.
No, that section says absolutely nothing about foreknowledge. Let's put that emphasis where it really belongs:
"to produce or create, or conspire to produce or create, a video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation of a violent crime, as defined in Section 16-1-60 [violent crimes], during its commission."
So, no, you don't need "foreknowledge," you just need to film a crime as it's being committed - whether you have any association with the criminal or not.
As usual, you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minion focused on exceptions rather than definition:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just don't get caught recording it.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Government Is Allowed to Spy, Watch, Record, Punish, Fine, Bill, Ruin your Life, or whatever it wants.
But you Are NOT Allowed to do the same to the Government you silly peon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that covered under "conspire to produce or create"? Because I wouldn't read it that way, though I'm not a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny how now its 'all crimes' and not violent crimes and how you also ignore the actual words of the legislation.
If you record a police officer arresting someone who committed a violent crime (alleged) you have not recorded THE CRIME (during its commission.) or any crime, unless the police are charged and convicted of committing a violent crime during the arrest that you recorded.
How many ways can TD and fanboys misinterpret such a simple thing ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An easy defense to get the whole law thrown out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given that,let's get to the comparison. Take a look at South Carolina law and be impressed at how harshly burglary is punished. Since this recording law only is triggered for 1st and 2nd degree burglary, (I don't really see how this type of burglary is automatically considered a violent crime but South Carolina does) the comparison must start there. 2nd degree burglary is punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment compared to a 5 year max for recording it. 1st degree burglary, which includes night-time burglary with no priors, is punishable by an amazing minimum of 15 years to life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As vague as this law is, it will be abused. This would just end up being one more tool to suppress those trying to hold corrupt cops and other officials accountable for their actions.
It will also have no effect in preventing its stated purpose. The people its intended to punish are already conspiring to commit a felony, this would just add more charges.
When the wording of a law/bill is so vague and the exceptions so narrow that you cannot be reasonably certain such simple actions as installing security cameras on your own property won't send before a judge and jury, the law/bill must be removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's a safety camera to monitor the 'safety' of people in case they hurt themselves so you can call an ambulance.
Or it's an 'auditing' camera to keep a log of all who enter/leave the premises.
Or it's a 'historical' camera, so it can be included in my memoirs/family video library.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, with regards to a security camera the recording of your neighbors walking their dog is incidental but the entire purpose of a security camera is to catch criminal activity - ie you are "conspiring to produce or create" a recording of any criminal activity that happens to take place in view of the camera.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
not to say that this law is anywhere near to perfect, in theory if you see someone assault someone else in public and you record it for the police, you could be charged, but the intent of the law is clear, but part (B) sorts it out, you are able too (and should) record a violent crime and you can, but you are not allowed to publish it, yes can give it to the police (that you called when you saw the crime start as well as record it).
you simply are not allowed to get your camera, and deliberately record a crime you know is going to happen and be a party to that crime, there is now a specific law against that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
uhuh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"
yes, that would be "official law enforcement", to 'deter' a crime is to enforce a crime, so if the camera is there to officially deter crime it is 'official law enforcement'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
sorry, that should be 'to deter a crime is to enforce a law'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are conflating "law enforcement" with "civil enforcement of property and/or personal rights" they are TOTALLY different.
If there was any doubt to what 'authorised' means then yes there might be ambiguities you could deal with within court, but as the law states there is absolutely no ambiguity with what is and what is not authorised. That's the whole problem with the thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It won't withstand one 1st amendment test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It won't withstand one 1st amendment test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It won't withstand one 1st amendment test
You can bet the farm that judges will interpret the Press to mean "bonefide news gathering" organizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It won't withstand one 1st amendment test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It won't withstand one 1st amendment test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It won't withstand one 1st amendment test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It won't withstand one 1st amendment test
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Between Superman "Grounded", Avengers Academy, Spider-Man's one-two punch of "One More Day" and the final storyline that led to "Superior Spider-Man", and literally everything Mark Millar has ever done...maybe it should be, in certain cases.
Like maybe only Morrison, Posehn, Moore and Ellis should be allowed to write comics, maybe Geoff Johns if he's had his medication for the day.
I kid, I kid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it is, actually. First, there's an obvious first amendment issue involved. But, ignoring that, we should want to encourage criminals of every stripe to record their activities, not discourage them. Recordings are evidence that make investigation and prosecution easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. This gets glossed over, and lots of people don't really understand it (because movies portray it as more benign, I think), but if you've struck your head hard enough to make you lose consciousness then you HAVE suffered some amount of brain damage. You can't have one without the other.
Being rendered unconscious by impact is actually a very serious medical condition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fake Crimes
I don't think this is the case. The proposed amendment states:
"It is unlawful for a person to produce or create, or conspire to produce or create, a video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation of a violent crime, as defined in Section 16-1-60 [violent crimes], during its commission."
Therefore, an actual crime, not a fake one for entertainment, would have to have been committed.
I am more concerned with the law enforcement aspects however. LEOs can record you for their protection, but it is illegal for you to record them committing a crime against you (or someone else). It might be interesting to see a case in court though. If an LEO takes a recording because it depicts a crime, could it be construed as an admission of guilt?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130827/09282724323/not-content-with-gutting-fourth-amendmen t-government-continues-its-attack-fifth-sixth.shtml
I'm probably being optimistic, as likely the accused would say that he/she wasn't the subject of the video and it becomes his/her word against yours. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake Crimes
Read it this way:
"It is unlawful for a person to produce or create [...] [a] visual depiction or representation of a violent crime [...] during its commission."
It doesn't have to be a depiction of an actual crime happening; just a "visual depiction or representation" of a crime happening.
At the very least, it could be read that way by a prosecutor. Meaning that eventually it will be, if the law passes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fake Crimes
"
It doesn't have to be a depiction of an actual crime happening;"
well yes it does, when "DURING ITS COMMISSION" is in is proper place.
your trying to say something like "how could I have murdered that person, he is dead!"
completely disregarding the fact he is dead because you murdered him. the "you cant kill a dead person" argument loses steam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fake Crimes
the LEOs would have to be charged and convicted of a violent crime before they could charge you for recording it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forest, meet trees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let me get this straight.
I call 911 for the injured person, then go to the nearest police station to report the crime and turn over the evidence.
They throw me in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So let me get this straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So let me get this straight.
as you recorded is specifically for law enforcement, your already calling it 'evidence'!
you see a couple suspicious-looking guys, you record them, its officially law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So let me get this straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight.
no that's not how it works, ANY means ANY, if you call the police and initiate law enforcement officers, that is "ANY OFFICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY" the OFFICIAL activity is you calling the officials.
ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES... means ...
ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, therefore you call the police tell them you recorded a crime, you have taken an action for initiate law enforcement.
If you were charged as you say, and you could not find 10,000 second rate lawyers who tear the Court a new one for charging you for turning over evidence of a crime under this law I would be surprised.
if it had of mean 'official law enforcement officer' it would have said that (in fact it did in sect (b)), so that is already covered.
ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, would also mean security guards, CCTV cameras etc.
They are there to deter and enforce the law, they form what would be considered "ANY". (ANY is quite broad)....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight.
that's not right, but "official" means here that you take your case to the POLICE, you going to the police is the official act,
a law enforcement activity is going to the police and helping them enforce the law,
look up the definition of "official" as well, will help a bit, and possibly "ANY" as well, I don't think you quite get the meaning of that little word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So let me get this straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
no its not, not until it has been provided to police and admitted as evidence, if that is done its "any official law enforcement activitie(s).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
if you record a crime and conceal that recording or withhold it from investigators you are 'withholding evidence' or not making evidence evident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Police (are supposed to) search for existing evidence, not manufacture evidence after the crime occurred. Sometimes they miss or (inadvertently) lose evidence, it is still evidence.
Evidence is not evident until it is found and revealed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
goodbye Shakespeare
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: goodbye Shakespeare
(not giant zoom in from an image of the entire city to the inside of a smoking 9mm shell casing lying next to a drop of blood), (queue sound effect).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frankly, law enforcement doesn't need any more tools when they have already shown that they cannot correctly and responsibly use the ones they have already been given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sorry but this should be a felony... If you see your friend getting attacked, and your first reaction is to video tape it.. you are a terrible friend and should be locked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if it were to be the first reaction, it most certainly shouldn't rank as a felony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the giveaway, should be "give to the police or use in a civil suit".
Violent crime is handled by the police not civil courts.
A video recording of a violent crime "TO GIVE TO POLICE" is clearly for the purposes of "ANY OFFICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES".
So much for that argument.... next !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now they will arrest me for this so I will have to stop.
ERNIE BLOODY CORGI VIDEOSITE is now down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA
So, this is really an NSA supporter bill. I am impressed by the convoluted nature of their schemes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
its not the video that is the crime, its the crime that is the crime.
would not matter if the video came from the moon, if it was recorded in SC it falls under SC law.
TD should not be your sole source of legal knowledge or understanding, you may find them lacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Romanaian websites are not subject to South Carolina Law
222.ro is in Roamania, therefore the site owners are only subject to Romanian law, and, therefore, cculd never be forced to reveal the IP address where a video came from.
The owners of 222.ro, in Romania, are not subject to the laws of South Carolina, or anywhere else, in the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Romanaian websites are not subject to South Carolina Law
IF THAT PERSON RECORDED it in SC then he falls under SC law, who give a fuck about some web hosting site in Romania. The crime did not occur in Romania, it occurred in SC, people are liable for the law where they are when they committed the crime. Goodness me !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Romanaian websites are not subject to South Carolina Law
This is why I could see such recordings being posted to offshore sites that cannot be forced by US authorities to hand over any user information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it enforceable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it enforceable?
The idea is you arrest and change the moron punching the other person AND all his idiot friends who think its cool to potentially murder people in the name of 'fun'.
Recording a police officer arrest someone is still legal, unless the police officer wants to face charges of violent crime himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it enforceable?
Is it seriously practical to arrest a citizen and then not give them a fair trial for an unknown amount of time while you find out if you even have any basis for the prosecution? Is it even legal to arrest someone without having sufficient evidence of a crime?
Imagine a murder arrest where the police could claim "we're pretty sure you murdered and buried someone in the park but we don't have a body so we're going to arrest and hold you while we dig up the park to find out if there is really a body... shouldn't take us more than a couple of years to be sure."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it enforceable?
so you might be bailed or not, but you face the same justice system, and if the main offender was found innocent, so would you be.
I don't see what your issue is sorry, you would be charged, but nor found guilty or innocent until Court.
it is possible the person could be found guilty of a violent crime and you innocent, but not possible for him to be found innocent and you guilty if you filmed it.
either way you will both face due process (charges, bail, Courts etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it enforceable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it enforceable?
so prosecution would first have to prove the crime, and then set out to prove conspirators (or recorders) to that crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Police officer to judge, "I want to charge him for recording a violent crime". Judge "what crime"
Police officer "me arresting a suspect"
Police officer "I want you to charge me for a violent crime"
Judge "WHY ?"
Police officer "So I can charge this guy for recording me"
Judge "Fuck off, you are a moron".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this law does not say you cannot film police
If you record a person running down the street chased by 6 police officers, are you recording a violent crime ??
for the police to be able to charge you for recording a 'violent crime' they would have to also prove a violent crime is what you recorded.
Do you think the police would be willing to admit they were committing a violent crime in order to get you in trouble for recording it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least it would put an end to those animal abuse commercials with Sarah McLachlan (seriously, who wants to see those violent images in the middle of watching the Too Cute show on Animal Planet or a comedy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 words for you
its just that simple
its really not that hard....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3 words for you
And if you don't think that the overly aggressive prosecutor isn't going to argue that at your trial and have a good likelihood of success then you must be new to how things work here in the USA. (See Carmen Ortiz (US) vs. Aaron Swartz)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Famous Examples
This would land a certain Paul Revere in Jail: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Boston_Massacre_high-res.jpg
I think this might get Malcolm Browne in trouble (although the news clause might protect him):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_self-im molation.jpg
Hmmm... Anything related to Syria (citizen journalism isn't journalism craziness).
Maybe even the artist of this painting of the First Battle of Fort Sumter:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Sumter.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Famous Examples
what size telephoto lens do you need to record events in Syria from South (ANYWHERE IN THE UNITIED STATES)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faking Knockout Suing for False Arrest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Faking Knockout Suing for False Arrest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Faking Knockout Suing for False Arrest
wow,, just wow, let me know when you plan to try that one !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Faking Knockout Suing for False Arrest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical Stupid Politician
Someone who accomapnies a person with the intent to record their attack on a third party, is an accessory to the crime of assault. It should be evident from content and psoitioning that the recording was a deliberate attempt to record a prmeditated assault, that the recorder knew what was going on beforehand.
that's already a crime. if penaltis for assault do not give enough leeway to punish an accessory, raise the penalty.
We don't need a dozen new laws to add to the current one. This simply gives the DA the opportunity to add charges, the classic Aaron Schwartz play - "look, we got you on 30 charges, 374 years max. for that one assault. Wanna gamble with teh jury (who aren't allowed to know the penalties, just if you're guilty) or make a deal to boost my conviction rate the easy way? We'll drop 25 of the charges, "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]