Hello:
These
days, everybody has a camera, and they're recording your government in
action - especially the police - and the police don't like it.. When videographers show up to film at city
hall, they're told the bureaucrats are "uncomfortable", and cannot be
recorded. When the cops arrive on scene, they're quick to tell the
cameramen where they CAN record, and where they CANNOT, hence my
question.
Do you HAVE the Constitutional right to record ANYTHING your eyes can
LEGALLY see? If not, why not? I say YES. If you can legally BE where
you are, you can legally record it. Lemme ask it another way.. Do you, Joe Citizen, HAVE an expectation of privacy when you're in public? If so, why? No, I'm not talking about rest rooms.
I didn't link any particular website, because YouTube is RIFE with these type of videos. Search for 1st Amendment Auditors.
excon
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
What is often left out of these discussions is the context. The privacy laws exist for a reason, and there are cases in which privacy is to be respected, and cases in which it is not: the spirit of the law is such that privacy is to be respected when it comes to personal matters, but to not be respected when it comes to matters affecting others - and, as such, each individual case should be treated with what impact privacy considerations have on others in mind.
Me demanding that you do not take a close shot of my credit card does not infringe on any particular personal freedom you have: it is not any more unreasonable than me demanding that you do not stick your nose in my face. There is no reason for you to take a picture of my credit card other than to use it for your purposes and without my permission, hence it is reasonable for the government to prosecute you for doing so if I object and you still do it.
On the other hand, me demanding that you do not take a picture of the metro car in which I happen to sit is unreasonable: there are gazillions of reasons you might have to take that picture that have nothing to do with me or my interest, and my desire to not be on your picture is not enforceable. When riding a metro I should expect that some people might want to take pictures of the car and that I may happen to appear on those pictures. We are talking about purely a public space here; privacy is irrelevant.
This is as far as public spaces go, or private spaces with no explicit rules. The owner of private land should be free to impose any restrictions they want on what others can do on that land. I can request that no one brings any recording equipment into my home, and anyone who is unhappy with that request is free to not enter my home. Me not letting some people in my home because I do not like something about their behavior is completely within my rights and does not infringe on anyone's constitutional freedoms.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
And what aspect of the philosophy of law and the spirit of the Constitution are you basing this assertion on? You certainly have some expectation of privacy within your small personal space, regardless of where you find yourself. If I shove my camera in your face and start taking pictures, it will be considered a legal offense in every legal system in the world. If I start digging in your private documents that happened to lay on the table you are dining at in a restaurant, it will be considered a punishable intrusion.
You may find, among others, this record to be of interest: https://cyber.harvard.edu/privacy/Privacy_R2d_Torts_Sections.htm
Notice the sentence "reasonable person". That is how the Common Law works: rather than having mathematically precise formulations, the reasoning behind the law is explained, and it is up to the court to determine whether the particular circumstances align with that reasoning or not. Someone taking pictures of your credit card without your permission is not doing it just to test his camera: he has (or, at least, is reasonably expected to have) a very particular purpose in mind, a purpose that is in conflict with your property rights.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, this law has been copied written since 1977 § 652B Intrusion Upon Seclusion and not one state has been reprimanded for violations of privacy created by pregnancy abortion legislation in America because it was left up to the interpretation of the court? Even after the Supreme court found that abortion in legislation was found to be Unconstitutionally an invasion of privacy. the reasoning behind the law is explained, and it is up to the court to determine whether the particular circumstances align with that reasoning or not, or a self-incrimination is made by legislators of law. Some FYI what I notice first about the sentence of "reasonable person" is it states "his" as a point of sexism which was unconstitutional when copy written into law. The reason for addressing this issue directly is women have moved for "Equal Rights" between themselves and men and the end result is all that has been achieved is equal wrong. The reason behind American United States Constitution is so law may be written to maintain a speed to trial as an improvement to established justice not as you claim broaden the interpretation of the courts to use law creativity as a 2nd amendment arm brought two bear on the people. This is a person’s effort only to increase the said value of higher education, the higher you are educated the more you can interpret the law on behalf of yourself and others. To summarize, law increases speed to trail and Constitutional right increases quality of truth in laws written to speed the legal process. The major concern is that the quality of the more perfect constitutional right has been abandoned. This is a dereliction of duty. The issue is not if in this time we now have a camera the condition is that editing software has made it easier to change the conditions of truth in recordings made on devices which have existed for without a way to corrupt then readily available.
Do we have a United States Constitutional right to recored anything our eye's can see and ears can hear? Jack I had told you many times it all depends on the way we hold a state of the union with the American Constitutional Preamble. What is clear is the 1st Amendment does not have a introduction of facts as united state in state of the union which makes it possible.
The issue is not if in this time we now have a camera o record information the condition is that editing software has made it easier to change the conditions of truth held on recordings made by devices which have existed without a many ways to corrupt data readily available.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Before I can aswer in truth I would need to know...... What are the United States we are to preserve in American Constitution?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Not when interpreting the Constitution
A lawyer pays for a license and malpractice insurance along with special instruction by way of law degree to interpret law on behalf of a person, in some limited was a group of people, the American Constitution is looking the more perfection state of the union in the larges of United States, these democracies created by the very connections of law between the people, on behalf of “We the People of United States.” They the council or legal teams are self-alienated and because of their choice also proceed with a high risk of legal malpractice, as their own actions often requires, they break written United States of truth held by those who bind united states constitutional right.
Summarizing, we are arguing the understandings made between Articles of, Sections of, and Amendments to Constitution. They are not all the same thing Jack the focus of grievance is the legal malpractice occurring as ratified Constitutional Amendments are set by the innuendo and assumption of law which is phrased in similar ways as “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Create an illegal and false fact of interpretation of law rising to the occasion of American Constitutional Right and can push by the lie of congress shall somehow magically have powers to enforce legal malpractice, clearly not an appropriate legislation technique.
The idea that the educational system has a value that supports protection against legal malpractice of law is wrong. It is the type of insurance the lawyers, law firms, and Institutions alike all hold together against their own malpractice which binds the system in check with balances. This is the balanced and honest disclosure and transparency on national debt promised to be made public.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The idea that the educational system has a value that supports protection against legal malpractice of law is wrong. It is the type of insurance the lawyers, law firms, and Institutions alike all hold together against their own malpractice which binds the system in check with balances. This is the balanced and honest disclosure and transparency on national debt promised to be made public.
That is how the Common Law works: rather than having mathematically precise formulations.
A lie, is a lie, is a lie.The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth being precise formula, that is how the Common law is said to work in its state of unseen, unwitnessed perfection.
Freedom has no cost......There is very little ever scary about fact and truth displayed as no cost a united state of constitutional right. Why else would people walk all over, and ignore truths like a woman as Presadera, there is no cost to women the cost to men negated when they are bound as a democracy together by any equality of such high standard. Only right. Discrimination as the more perfect union has created nothing more a long list of women who now are no better ut equal to the groups of men who had sought financial gain over the protection, preservation, and defense of United States American Constitutional right. In the first place. One hell of the world’s more perfect unions to established justice.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am not scared of freedom. How I personally wish the legal system worked has nothing to do with how it actually works. If your freedom manifests in denying reality and pretending that the system works differently from how it does, then your freedom is that of a schizophrenic, not a strong independent individual. You are all emotions, like a child who thinks that screaming at his mother is going to cause the ice-cream to magically teleport into his bowl.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
MayCaesar
Which do you think is going to be preferred by the court. What council preferred does not matter the courts are to addressing a quality towards a state of perfection of a united state of the American constitutional union, and must be able to preserve the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth so help the GOD which is not religion but fact a tangible property to be guidance, in the legislation of law. Or, must report the law as unfit for legislation or enforcement by Congress or police. MayCaesar. As the court had done in Roe vs Wade in 1973. Please keep in mind it is by legal malpractice congress has addressed itself as an enforcer of law, and it is the legal malpractice that is now in question. It is also a legal malpractice of law which is then described in several constitutional Amendments. Jacks’ frustrations are to be understood for there a clear justified motivation behind them.
19th "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." 18th "The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." 16th "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." 15th "The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." 14th "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." 13th " Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Six times in six Amendments with six ratifications by the states of American Constitution has the identical thing been documented as a United States Constitutional Right. Is there a point made by human intelligence that can possibly justify the necessity to repeat something six times that should be addressed only once in appropriate legislation? Yes the legilstion was not appropriate is the state of the union address.
How I personally wish the legal system worked has nothing to do with how it actually works. The Constitutional right has everything to do with exactly how the courts do or do not work. Period! Law addresses specifically the speed courts bring matters to trial. We are at the point of looking, Identifying, and correcting errors which have created the noted decline in both the quality and speed the courts work.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
MayCaesar said: Why is it not reasonable? Please explain
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Beliefs are tested by reality. Your abstract arguments will not fly in the real American court, while I can cite the exact legal document that the court will accept. If you want to test your belief, then go ahead and spend a day shoving your phone in people's faces and taking pictures - see how far your constitutional arguments take you once you are apprehended.
If you want to "just leave it at that", you should not have created this thread on a debate website. If to you it is just a matter of different beliefs, then there has never been anything to talk about, since nothing I can say and nothing you can say is going to change the status-quo.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You also are forgetting yourself, boy: this is not your website. I am going to pedal "my nonsense" here relentlessly. What was that saying you were so fond of... "freedom is scary"? Be scared, jack. I am a scary creature indeed!
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Other than capturing images of naked children playing at the beach, or something illegal like that, we should have the right to record anything we see legally.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The principal situation is what can be now called legally EOD meaning Executive Order Dumb, which for lack of better orders was at one time describing an act of inappropriate legislation of law as FUBAR F#cked-up beyond all recognition being why which is almost the same as or just like SNAFU situation normal all F#ck-up. All this attention because no one has any idea how so much horse manure can become legislation of law with no connection to established justice to be said.
My quote to remember here is "You don't know how civil lawsuits work." At this point what is becoming quickly self-evident is they work with legal prejudice...
Funny thing about Sh!T it never just happens and sometimes it can act just like glue.Wash your hands.......
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
No, we do not have that right to record anything we legally see you are taking that liberty...we can only presume the things we see are legal in the first place until proven guilty in a court of law. As self-evident truth this means then the odds of you being introduced to a court of law increase proportionally to the number of events you recorded. All presumption under the conditions of court availability and public access.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
The States must ratify the law and thus is part by Vote of the process right, wrong, criminal, non-criminal, truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth said in the presence of a principle of GOD which is by fact decriable as not religous. There is no United State law held between GOD and religion there is religous beliefs.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra