[Vision2020] The Right to Record

[lfalen]

I could not agree more on this issue.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Art Deco art.deco.studios at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 08:02:15 -0700
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] The Right to Record

>   [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>
> 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=c5714c24/61a1580e&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787506c_nyt5&ad=BEMH_120x60_May4_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fthebestexoticmarigoldhotel>
> 
> ------------------------------
> May 20, 2012
> The Right to Record
> 
> The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department took an important stand
> last week, declaring<http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/05/united_states_letter_re_photography_5_14_2012_0.pdf>that
> citizens have a First Amendment right to videotape the actions of
> police officers in public places and that seizure or destruction of such
> recordings violates constitutional rights.
> 
> The Justice Department made the statement in a federal lawsuit brought
> against the Baltimore Police Department by Christopher Sharp, who used his
> cellphone to take video of the police arresting and beating a friend at
> Pimlico on the day of the 2010 Preakness. The officers took Mr. Sharp’s
> cellphone while he was recording and wiped the phone clean of all videos
> before returning it to him.
> 
> The Courts of Appeals for the
> First<http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf>and
> Seventh<http://blogs.nppa.org/advocacy/files/2012/05/SB-1808-ACLU-7th-Circuit-Opinion.pdf>Circuits
> have wisely found that the Constitution protects the right to
> videotape police officers while they perform official duties. The
> video<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWF3Ddr7vdc>taken by another
> witness of the beating at Pimlico shows that the right to
> record is crucial to holding police accountable for their actions.
> 
> Mr. Sharp sued for damages to his personal property and for injunctive
> relief in the form of a clear policy on videotaping consistent with the
> Constitution and also training for the police. The judge hearing the case
> arranged a settlement conference for May 30, though the case is far from
> being settled.
> 
> Last November, the Police Department issued an
> order<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-public-photographs-a-crime-scenes-document,0,4003580.htmlpage>paying
> lip service to the right of citizens to make “video recording of
> police activity.” But the day after that order became public, as The
> Baltimore Sun<http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bal-in-federal-hill-citizens-allowed-to-record-police-but-then-theres-loitering-20120211,0,3706866.story>reported,
> police officers were caught on video threatening to arrest for
> loitering a man who was recording them as they surrounded and held someone
> on the ground.
> 
> It is essential that the Justice Department and federal courts make clear
> that police departments will be held liable for violating this
> constitutionally protected right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
> 
>