Federal Judge Says Photographing Police Not Always Protected by 1st Amendment
Are we SURE Scalia passed away?
//
This will not stand. So many higher court rulings are contrary to this ruling. No, our motive for taking a picture does not decide the constitutionality of our photography.
We have not found […] any case in the Supreme Court or this Circuit finding citizens have a First Amendment right to record police conduct without any stated purpose of being critical of the government,” the court writes, “[…] we decline to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions.”
“I don’t know of any other court ruling that requires journalists to announce their intentions while engaging in journalism,” writes Radley Balko of the Washington Post. “To do so would kill off a lot of investigative journalism. The same goes for most other protected conduct.”
“Whether one is physically speaking (to challenge or criticize the police or to praise them or to say something else) is relevant to whether one is engaged in expression,” writes Eugene Volokh of the Post. “But it’s not relevant to whether one is gathering information, and the First Amendment protects silent gathering of information (at least by recording in public) for possible future publication as much as it protects loud gathering of information.”
An appeal is reportedly planned in response to Judge Kearney’s decision.
More: Federal Judge Says Photographing Police Not Always Protected by 1st Amendment