But when someone wants to deal with a problem there are ways to tap dance around even the constitution. - And these auditors, and you who support them, are handing out the dance classes.
@@lance3748 By "exercising" these rights, these auditors are essentially giving these bureaucrats the ability to hone their tap dancing skills. However, if they do nothing, will the rights be taken away due to nobody using them? I see it as a lose lose. The system has to collapse on its own. All we can do is lay low and adapt until ai goes rogue.
Then file a FOIA for those. They'll be released, with public information redacted. But it's not really about that for you. It's about getting into arguments so lens licker viewers will tune in and give to your grift. Enjoy going to jail, again.
What about the bill that the traitor Ron signed with the 25 rule in it question mark is anyone going to try to fight that unconstitutional law that the traitor Republicans passed here in Florida? This is just more proof that conservative Republicans are traitors to the USA and they hate people having constitutional rights and they hate government being held accountable
Wrong, in every state, you do not have the right to record a conversation that you are not a part of. You also are not allowed to reveal the contents to anyone that was not a part of the conversation. Like the chief stated, the issue is that they record conversations that they are not a part of. This is a wire taping violation. They then interject and harass the cops. Of course they ask for a FOIA request, because that is the excuse CZcams tellls them to use, but they need a reaction, so they bait, harass, yell at the cops. They did not come in for a FOIA, ( When was the last time a fraud reported on the results idjots FOIA)
@@richlaue you are extremely misinformed. You are allowed to record anything and everything that is taking place in public. In public, if I can see it and I can hear it, I can record it.
The problem is inside of govt buildings are nonpublic forums. “First Amendment auditors are focusing their filming activity on lobbies or waiting areas of local government buildings. In context of other types of First amendment activity, courts across the United States have generally treated these areas in government-owned buildings as nonpublic forums.” Source: UNC School of Govt There are numerous court rulings that validate that inside public forum the tenant agency can restrict photography. Plus there is this... “To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings generally.” Source: UNC School of Govt
@Pmtd1234 Non of that is true it is well established in the Supreme court that we HAVE the unequivocal right to record public servants in the course of their duties you have some bad information
@@dedios03 That is very true, when in traditional public forums, which is the location for the various rulings. Auditors lie when they say that inside of govt buildings because govt buildings, including lobbies are nonpublic forums.
@@hornetsnestmedia I love our freedoms very much. If I were in a lobby like this and someone were doing something really bad, I would love to film it. But to film things just to irritate people, make videos, embarrass police, try to file lawsuits... That's just wrong and it is costing us our rights. New laws are coming that will put auditors on the run, which is exactly what I predicted years ago.
It's because cops are too lazy in general and want to get the reporting done & over with as soon as possible. They also don't want "civilians" in their "personal areas" , meaning inside their workplace which they thinks is theirs...just like "their" police cars, etc.
@@luistraversoteullet727 So that’s time and manner issues, so you deal with them the same way as a huge crowd. You have the right to assemble, but you can’t block the roads, so you regulate it the same way, it’s actually not that hard. The fact that it is in a building rather than the sidewalk doesn’t make it more complex, either don’t have a public lobby, that could be a potential solution. Filming should be allowed from any public ally accessible location, whether it be the sidewalk, underground or in a building
"Press" doesn't have special privileges. "Press" can still be restricted from recording in certain places. "press" generally have ethics that they follow and don't make themselves the story. Idiots on CZcams aren't automatically"Press"
@@pical1208 but frauditor don't ID, and don't want to pass a security check, so how can security protect the building???. A lot of talk about rights but what about the rights to be safe from the people in the building???, frauditor think that being a US citizen is a guarantee of being a good safe person but that is crap. All mass shopters and domestic terrorism in the US is made by US citizens
Your Ordinance doesn’t supersede the constitution. If you’re worried about their privacy have a special room to take the initial information. You don’t have a right to infringe on the rights of others because you have not done your due diligence to protect privacy.
It's a limited public forum. Just because the public is allowed in doesn't mean it's open to do whatever you want there. This has withstood court testing time and time again. But frauditor apologists still trot out the same tired old lines.
@@DefiantHeart if it’s open to the public and people can walk in with their eyes, they can walk in with a camera. People are so concerned with their privacy yet they walk in front of 1000 cameras a day and never blink an eye. But a guy walks by with a camera and they lose their mind, something is wrong upstairs.
@@joesphschramm3754Real Americans welcome to police stations to hold them accountable and to make public records request. Are you really that dumb do you really not have the critical thinking skills to understand what's going on. That's rhetorical question cuz we can see you have no critical thinking skills you have no clue what you're talking about
@@DefiantHeartwe get it you hate the government being held accountable because you're part of the problem and you like traitors to the USA because you hate the USA. But Real Americans unlike yourself want to hold government accountable because Real Americans know the government's not in charge of us we're in charge of the government but people like you don't have no clue what you're talking about believe it's the other way around making you part of the problem. That's a public Lobby time place and enter open to the public during business hours and not making a scene and the Supreme Court ruled videotaping is official business and it's the only business we need to be in that public area document what are public servants do and the course of of their duty. Go read Smith versus Cummins. You won't read it because you don't like the fact that we got the rights to document what our Public Service do because you hate the fact that we're trying to hold our government accountable for their crimes but you like criminals cuz you're a traitor just like all conservative Republicans
Right, the old "baiting" claim. Because a police officer would NEVER violate or be ignorant of someones rights unless they were tricked into losing their temper
No. Being an ahole and deliberately antagonizing people for CZcams cash is baiting. This is EXACTLY what these clowns do. They don't give an F about your rights, only insofar as they can profit from them.
If it’s bait the why would they take it and not just ignore them? If it happens that much that they’d try to get an illegal ordinance then why wouldn’t they just train the officers and staff to ignore the auditors or otherwise respect their rights? If they just respected their rights they would not need to go there anymore because the police station would pass.
@@uonecar I'm not understanding your request? I watched the video. Are you trying to say he had more business and had to go again, which is what they're supposed to be there for as public employees? Are you complaining he went more than once for information?
@@uonecar to be clear this city ordinance or policy or even a law created is still against our constitutional rights. Idk what you're not understanding.
@@dabzprincess92 “To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings generally.” Source: UNC School of Govt
agreeed - news media must suck the boots of cops. If they do not, they will not be allowed in "news conferences". This is straight out of a dictatorship.
NO it hasn't .....""To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings, cases in which U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized a “right to record” concerns one category of public employees (police officers) engaged in one type of activity (carrying out public duties) in one type of area (traditional public forums)."" ........ UNC School of Government Nov 2022.....
All the videos i seen on the internet, I have never ever seen anyones personal information posted. But I have seen police brutality and violence. Many videos of citizens rights being violated by sadistic bullies and thugs aka police officers. Also citizens tortured by police. Let’s not forget the citizens life’s ruined by abuse and incarcerated for nothing. They are the lucky ones, we have citizens murdered by overzealous ego driven police whose behavior is an exact copy of the NAZIS. Don’t forget the paralyzed and crippled with broken necks because some sadistic officer wanted to throw a handcuffed citizen to the ground. Now that cameras are bringing the truth to light the blue line gang wants to change the rights of the people and trash the constitution. You say they film with no reasonable purpose. Please see above. How much violence has been curtailed because a camera was present. No purpose? I don’t think so. Ask the citizen with the broken nose and broken neck. He’s in a wheelchair unable to take care of himself the rest of his life. WHAT HAPPENED TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? STOP QUALIFIED IMMUNITY!
Take the victim to an interview room or back room so they can sit & disclose information. Simple. This obviously doesn't overpower the Constitution, just a waste of time.
@@wyldvigilante Well unfortunately you seem to believe auditors. Hint...they lie, which increases their YT hits. “It is common for First Amendment auditors to claim that they have a First Amendment right to film in a government building because it is open to the public (or in some cases, simply because it is owned by the government). However, the fact that an area is held open to the public is not sufficient to establish it as a public forum for First Amendment purposes. The area must also be traditionally used for or expressly dedicated to expressive activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly stated that publicly owned or operated property “is not transformed into ‘public forum’ property merely because the public is permitted to freely enter and leave the grounds at practically all times and the public is admitted to the building during specified hours.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 178 (1983). Source: Coates’ Canons
@@knowtheforum I always question people who oppose American rights. I also believe that if it’s not short and sweet it’s long and bitter like your comment.
@@knowtheforum I also believe that if YOU do not like the freedoms we have in America , rather than take those freedoms away from those of us who want them you can move to a nation that has no such freedoms or internet to annoy you with . No auditors. No filming in public and no Americans. Problem solved and everyone is happy
""in public"" means in a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways etc, outdoor public areas ,,,,,THAT's where our free speech and our right to film is protected by the first amendment, NOT inside a building owned by the government/state/county/city/town = NON--PUBLIC FORUM.....CASE LAW .......""The First Amendment does not give citizens the right to exercise free speech rights on any government property at any time. “The State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.”---Adderley v. State of Florida, 385 US 39, 47 (1967).....that means the owners of ""public buildings"" = the government/state/county/city/town, has EXACTLY the same rights as the owners of private property. ANYONE can be trespassed from any property by the owner/manager.....CASE LAW....“The First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.” ------United States Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Association, 453 US 114, 129 (1981). ""To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings, cases in which U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized a “right to record” concerns one category of public employees (police officers) engaged in one type of activity (carrying out public duties) in one type of area (traditional public forums)."" ........ UNC School of Government Nov 2022....... If you or anyone thinks that any of these laws are unconstitutional then what you SHOULD do is film yourself being refused entry, leave, take your video to a lawyer write up a coherrent dossier explaining why you think it is unconstitutional, file a law suit and let a judge decide ..... What you do NOT do , is refuse to leave, argue with security or police, insult security or police , THEY are doing their job and applying the law as it stands, they don't decide or write laws or statutes they are applying what the actual law states , if you don't like it go see a lawyer and stop trying to shame or humiliate hardworking american citizens who are respecting the law , contributing to society earning their money and respect and paying taxes.
@@RichardHead23 who is the government buttercup? Government property is public property smart one 😂 The police lobby is no different that a county park 😂it is not a restricted part of government like offices and other areas deemed restricted. Libraries and police station lobbies and parking lots are perfectly legal to be filmed in per the constitution. You are wrong
"" A county park"" is a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways , etc outdoor public areas ,,,,, INSIDE a building is NOT a traditional public forum ,,, they are NON--PUBLIC FORUMS or LIMITED public forums.......The Seventh Circuit has held that “the interior of a police station is not a public forum.”--------First Def. Legal Aid v. City of Chi., 319 F.3d 967, 968 (7th Cir. 2003)........,,The Southern District of New York has recognized New York Police Department meeting rooms as nonpublic forums.-------Latino Officers Ass’n v. City of New York, No. 97 CIV. 1384 (KMW), 1998 WL 80150, at *4(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 1998)......,,,,Likewise, the Central District of California has held that a police station is a nonpublic forum.------Boyd v. City of Hermosa Beach, No. CV0410528AGJTLX, 2007 WL 9717625, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007)...... ,,,In a decision affirmed by the Eighth Circuit, the Western District of Missouri held that a plaintiff had no constitutional right to videotape a police department lobby.-------Akins v. City of Columbia, No. 2:15-CV-04096-NKL, 2016 WL 4126549, at *17 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2,2016), aff’d sub nom. Akins v. Knight, 863 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2017)....... ,,,,Likewise, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a “no-filming” restriction imposed in the lobby of a police department as a reasonable restraint on free speech.-------Commonwealth v. Bradley, 2020 PA Super 109, 232 A.3d 747, 755 (2020)........Maybe you should learn to read instead of repeating youtube lawyers ,,, who seem to keep ending up in jail.
"" A county park"" is a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways , etc outdoor public areas ,,,,, INSIDE a building is NOT a traditional public forum ,,, they are NON--PUBLIC FORUMS or LIMITED public forums.......The Seventh Circuit has held that “the interior of a police station is not a public forum.”........,,The Southern District of New York has recognized New York Police Department meeting rooms as nonpublic forums......,,,,Likewise, the Central District of California has held that a police station is a nonpublic forum....... ,,,In a decision affirmed by the Eighth Circuit, the Western District of Missouri held that a plaintiff had no constitutional right to videotape a police department lobby..... ,,,,Likewise, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a “no-filming” restriction imposed in the lobby of a police department as a reasonable restraint on free speech......Maybe you should learn to read instead of repeating youtube lawyers ,,, who seem to keep ending up in jail.
Unfortunately, there is nothing that you do with the police department that is Private ever it can be all requested as a Public Records request on body cam
@@luistraversoteullet727 every audio and video recording in a police department, or from a body cam is available to the public through the freedom of information act.
@@straunwagner6322 @brentjeffries589 There is diferences between security cameras and frauditors cameras: 1. Security cameras are for security and if you foia them it will be redacted 2. Security cameras are on the roof, quite away from any private data, and have no sound. 3. Security cameras dont have a creep behind trying so hard to pick up a fight
@@straunwagner6322 There is diferences between security cameras and frauditors cameras: 1. Security cameras are for security and if you foia them it will be redacted (even bodycams can be redacted) 2. Security cameras are on the roof, quite away from any private data, and have no sound. 3. Security cameras dont have a creep behind trying so hard to pick up a fight
How embarrassing for the police to be so uneducated on this. I agree there may be private conversations in a police station, and there should also be closed rooms for report taking interviews or interrogations.
Incorrect. It's a limited public forum that does have expectations of privacy. And yes, even you do have an expectation of privacy in public to a certain extent. That's one of the reasons cops can't just search you on a whim. Maybe put down the frauditor talking points and look at the actual law.
@@DefiantHeartYou are very misinformed. I've been arrested over a dozen times for recording in public lobby of police stations, and then released without charges every single time 😂 If I broke a law, why haven't they ever charged me?
@@DefiantHeartNo it's not. It's OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Maybe you can explain why the government agencies can have cameras and audio recording inside the building and the citizens cannot. 🤔
Lol. No doubt you'd be commenting. You're about to lose your cash flow. Hope you go on to get a legitimate job that doesn't require you making an a hole of yourself.
There is no expectations of privacy in public. They must create privacy without infringing on our rights. That building is federally funded therefore it belongs to us.
The police in the lobby has to create the privacy, move these citizens into a private are for private consultation. Second, 25 feet us excessive. Most states have already ruled 14' is sufficient otherwise the police need to put up crime tape. If it's not a crime and it's in public view, again the police have to create the privacy.
So you go in and say you are reporting a crime, if anyone else is within ear shot. Reporter can be taken to secure room. Easy enough if your not trying to avoid accountability.
A media organization apparently taking the position that government can restrict the First Amendment on the excuse that some people deserve privacy? Tell the cops to provide a private space for crime reports, don't use the public lobby to discuss sensitive private information. If that requires a change in police procedures, then make that change.
But there are cameras in the lobby which we can request. So how does that work? Someone could put that on line. They can take them in a room if necessary.
I think they just don’t like it and it’s understandable I feel that way too it makes me feel not good if I could see someone filming me like that so I think they feel the same way. They should NOT be allowed because it could hurt the persons feelings.
@@ak_getright9905 that's the problem you're thinking instead of knowing the law and your God given rights. Freedom is scary deal with it because there's no room for ANYONE's feelings.
Comical, no city, county, or state can pass a 'law' or 'ordinance' that overrides the Constitution. This new 'policy' by the city is unConstitutional and will be struck down. Any city, county, or state government that passes something like this that is unConstitutional should be fined a million dollars immediately. If the public can freely walk there the public can freely walk there with a camera and record anything they can see, the law makes no distinction between human eyes and a camera.
privacy must be created. scotus - it is the duty of the org to create the privacy. when will they learn that the constitution is The Law of the Land - article VI us constitution. this is an unconstitutional ruling.
There is NO expectation of privacy in public. If someone was assaulted and needs privacy, they can ask for it, and it's the receptionists job to provide that comfort. It is not every citizens job to make other citizens feel comfortable.
And when the receptionist or others try to help make some privacy these auditors complain that it violates rights as well. - They have not protected our rights; they've taken our rights. And people like you helped it happen.
@lance3748 That's ignorant. Only a bad auditor would complain. Although I defend their right to take up any grievance they have with their government. Free speech is only free when everyone can peacefully have their say. I would never attack them for doing the right thing. Don't assume you know everything. That's called a God complex.
@@captainconstitution4238 I've seen other videos of auditors saying, "put up yellow tape if it's a crime scene." When they put it up they claim it's a violation of their rights. I saw a waiting room at a DMV with walls put up to protect privacy and an auditor put his camera above the wall. Auditing is not about protecting rights.
Lets be honest here, they dont give two sh*ts about y'alls rights. It's all for clicks and views. Personally, I'm fine not recording in some places if it means others' privacy is protected. Frauditors need to find other ways to make money like....getting a JOB!
How about go read all the case law both in the supreme Court of the United States and all the federal courts in every state the Supreme Court and all federal courts have ruled multiple times that the government has a right to restrict your rights in limited or nontraditional public forms, which would include libraries police station City Hall they’re not considered traditional public forms like sidewalks parks so their policy is law to govern that building if it’s unlimited or nontraditional public form, they can ask you not to record and is perfectly constitutional
It must be something big. Otherwise, why go to all that trouble creating a policy that will certainly get deemed unconstitutional. Not to mention the negative publicity and likely boycotting of businesses in Deland. It only makes sense if you've got something that you'd be ashamed of if the public found out.
Maybe a girl doesn't want to tell the receptionist ",I was raped" while some creepy stranger is standing there with a camera. Is it OK with you if we keep that secret?
The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Filming civilians during their private transaction is the only exception I can see to the rule. I've worked in courthouses etc and they're boring just let the guy film it will get old fairly quick.
Public spaces are NOT private areas. If you want privacy, you have to create privacy. There are laws in this country for a reason, and it’s NOT to protect your FEELINGS.
If the police don't want people to hear the conversations in the PUBLIC lobby, then they should probably bring people making complaints into a private room 🤷
They always claim they were making a records request and that they are “working on a story, but can’t talk about it until published”. It’s all a modern day scam to try and provoke a situation that they can file a BS lawsuit over. They are just minor criminals who would rather work a con-game than work a legit job like the rest of the world. I fully support the limitations being enacted in police stations and government officers against these asshats.
They need to get a new lawyer. One that will tell them this is unconstitutional and any attempt to enforce it will be expensive and generate a lot of negative publicity. The auditors do not operate in a vacuum. This story also shows how local news licks the boots of cops and government in order to keep getting access and stories.
WKMG, you sul have included some of these First amendment auditors videos. Show how vile and disruptive they are to public employees. This is not a complete picture of the situation. Show their videos so people can see that they are only there to incite confrontations in order to make money on CZcams.
In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." ". . the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 (1923)] "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)] "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime." [Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)] ". . .there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights." [Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (1973)] Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point-- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Turner v. Driver, No. 16-10312 (5th Cir. 2017), is a 2017 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that affirmed the First Amendment right to record the police.
We expect our public officials to create privacy for us. In most of these audits, the infrastructure isn't set up to maintain privacy. In other words, they aren't offering opportunities for privacy, or private spaces. In the future, there will be restricted, private booths in post offices, DMVs, and City Halls, like a priest's closet. You don't see priests taking confession in a pew. Citizens, as well, have a responsibility to maintain their own privacy when in public. Ask for a separate room. Wear a disguise. To government workers, it's just simply about education. That's the service these auditors are providing through popular but not-so-popular means. This is life in the 21st century.
They'll scream policy doesn't supercede law. But then they're too stupid to know that statutes are laws. They think those are exclusive terms. So, their views on policy and the weight it carries doesn't impress me either.
They could write 1 million policies, but POLICY dont TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION, unless you make a LAW, then you'll get sue for violation of the person's constitution rights...FEELINGS is not LAW or a CRIME..
To DeLand police and police across the nation. Unlike cancer, if the police would just ignore first amendment auditors, they WILL go away. Every clown (police) gives them exactly the content they're looking for, and which we are very much entertained by.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Policy doesn’t trump the constitution
Constitutional law trumps ALL
But when someone wants to deal with a problem there are ways to tap dance around even the constitution. - And these auditors, and you who support them, are handing out the dance classes.
Watch and learn. Lol
@indude1655 What is your favorite flavor of boot?
@@lance3748 By "exercising" these rights, these auditors are essentially giving these bureaucrats the ability to hone their tap dancing skills. However, if they do nothing, will the rights be taken away due to nobody using them? I see it as a lose lose. The system has to collapse on its own. All we can do is lay low and adapt until ai goes rogue.
Your policy doesn't trump their right to record in public
Yup makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL
LoL god I love watching you sovtards lose in court.
@@JustalilJaded Limited public forum, a police department is no place to protest
@@luistraversoteullet727recording isn't protesting.
@@JacksonStreetPollock Nope, is not, is harassing cops for youtubemoney
Nothing people do with cops is private. It’s all public including their body cam.
Then file a FOIA for those. They'll be released, with public information redacted. But it's not really about that for you. It's about getting into arguments so lens licker viewers will tune in and give to your grift. Enjoy going to jail, again.
What about the bill that the traitor Ron signed with the 25 rule in it question mark is anyone going to try to fight that unconstitutional law that the traitor Republicans passed here in Florida? This is just more proof that conservative Republicans are traitors to the USA and they hate people having constitutional rights and they hate government being held accountable
Exactly.
Wrong, in every state, you do not have the right to record a conversation that you are not a part of. You also are not allowed to reveal the contents to anyone that was not a part of the conversation.
Like the chief stated, the issue is that they record conversations that they are not a part of. This is a wire taping violation.
They then interject and harass the cops. Of course they ask for a FOIA request, because that is the excuse CZcams tellls them to use, but they need a reaction, so they bait, harass, yell at the cops.
They did not come in for a FOIA, ( When was the last time a fraud reported on the results idjots FOIA)
@@richlaue you are extremely misinformed. You are allowed to record anything and everything that is taking place in public. In public, if I can see it and I can hear it, I can record it.
They can write all of the policies they want… but policies do not override our rights!
No expectations of privacy in public.
The problem is inside of govt buildings are nonpublic forums.
“First Amendment auditors are focusing their filming activity on lobbies or waiting areas of local government buildings. In context of other types of First amendment activity, courts across the United States have generally treated these areas in government-owned buildings as nonpublic forums.” Source: UNC School of Govt
There are numerous court rulings that validate that inside public forum the tenant agency can restrict photography.
Plus there is this... “To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings generally.” Source: UNC School of Govt
@Pmtd1234
Non of that is true it is well established in the Supreme court that we HAVE the unequivocal right to record public servants in the course of their duties you have some bad information
@@dedios03 That is very true, when in traditional public forums, which is the location for the various rulings. Auditors lie when they say that inside of govt buildings because govt buildings, including lobbies are nonpublic forums.
thank you.
Wrong. There is no *reasonable* expectation of privacy in public. The standards for privacy in public are very high.
Bring them to a private room, not in a open lobby where the public waits? BABIES! DO YOUR JOB AND STOP VIOLATING OUR RIGHTS
Here they go. Police lobbies, next the public sidewalk, next, everywhere.
Next: Every right we have left.
And why? Because of auditors that go to far - who are encouraged by people like you.
@@lance3748 it's sad you feel that way about our American freedoms. I guess we should just comply and trust the government then?
@@hornetsnestmedia I love our freedoms very much. If I were in a lobby like this and someone were doing something really bad, I would love to film it. But to film things just to irritate people, make videos, embarrass police, try to file lawsuits... That's just wrong and it is costing us our rights. New laws are coming that will put auditors on the run, which is exactly what I predicted years ago.
@@lance3748 any "new laws" against our basic constitutional freedoms will not stand for long. History has proven this.
Lawsuits inbound
Common sense says IF someone were recording & I reported a senstive crime, take them to a secure room. How hard is that.
It's because cops are too lazy in general and want to get the reporting done & over with as soon as possible. They also don't want "civilians" in their "personal areas" , meaning inside their workplace which they thinks is theirs...just like "their" police cars, etc.
@@jibbityjab2469But yet the cops PUT people in their cop cars so that in itself is contradictory
If the public is allowed in then the press is allowed to be there
Everyone is the press, anyone can be a journalist
@@pical1208 so if everyone is press,and everyone must be allowed, how the security can protect the building???
@@luistraversoteullet727 So that’s time and manner issues, so you deal with them the same way as a huge crowd. You have the right to assemble, but you can’t block the roads, so you regulate it the same way, it’s actually not that hard. The fact that it is in a building rather than the sidewalk doesn’t make it more complex, either don’t have a public lobby, that could be a potential solution. Filming should be allowed from any public ally accessible location, whether it be the sidewalk, underground or in a building
"Press" doesn't have special privileges. "Press" can still be restricted from recording in certain places. "press" generally have ethics that they follow and don't make themselves the story.
Idiots on CZcams aren't automatically"Press"
@@pical1208 but frauditor don't ID, and don't want to pass a security check, so how can security protect the building???. A lot of talk about rights but what about the rights to be safe from the people in the building???, frauditor think that being a US citizen is a guarantee of being a good safe person but that is crap. All mass shopters and domestic terrorism in the US is made by US citizens
Your Ordinance doesn’t supersede the constitution. If you’re worried about their privacy have a special room to take the initial information. You don’t have a right to infringe on the rights of others because you have not done your due diligence to protect privacy.
They have special areas for this. Who walks into a police station without making a call first?
It's a limited public forum. Just because the public is allowed in doesn't mean it's open to do whatever you want there. This has withstood court testing time and time again. But frauditor apologists still trot out the same tired old lines.
@@DefiantHeart if it’s open to the public and people can walk in with their eyes, they can walk in with a camera. People are so concerned with their privacy yet they walk in front of 1000 cameras a day and never blink an eye. But a guy walks by with a camera and they lose their mind, something is wrong upstairs.
@@joesphschramm3754Real Americans welcome to police stations to hold them accountable and to make public records request. Are you really that dumb do you really not have the critical thinking skills to understand what's going on. That's rhetorical question cuz we can see you have no critical thinking skills you have no clue what you're talking about
@@DefiantHeartwe get it you hate the government being held accountable because you're part of the problem and you like traitors to the USA because you hate the USA. But Real Americans unlike yourself want to hold government accountable because Real Americans know the government's not in charge of us we're in charge of the government but people like you don't have no clue what you're talking about believe it's the other way around making you part of the problem. That's a public Lobby time place and enter open to the public during business hours and not making a scene and the Supreme Court ruled videotaping is official business and it's the only business we need to be in that public area document what are public servants do and the course of of their duty. Go read Smith versus Cummins. You won't read it because you don't like the fact that we got the rights to document what our Public Service do because you hate the fact that we're trying to hold our government accountable for their crimes but you like criminals cuz you're a traitor just like all conservative Republicans
This will cost the tax payer's. Policy is not law.
Good luck getting that law to stick
It's a policy, which is not law.
There's no privacy in public.
Right, the old "baiting" claim. Because a police officer would NEVER violate or be ignorant of someones rights unless they were tricked into losing their temper
Bait? 🤔 so doing a constitutionally protected activity it baiting? Dumb!!
No. Being an ahole and deliberately antagonizing people for CZcams cash is baiting. This is EXACTLY what these clowns do. They don't give an F about your rights, only insofar as they can profit from them.
If it’s bait the why would they take it and not just ignore them? If it happens that much that they’d try to get an illegal ordinance then why wouldn’t they just train the officers and staff to ignore the auditors or otherwise respect their rights? If they just respected their rights they would not need to go there anymore because the police station would pass.
Exactly! Police use bait tactics all the time. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
FTP
An ordinance DOESN'T TRUMP LAW THIS IS AN UTTER RIGHTS VIOLATION
maybe you should watch the video of the auditor and you can see what really happened that guy already been to the window
@@uonecar I'm not understanding your request? I watched the video. Are you trying to say he had more business and had to go again, which is what they're supposed to be there for as public employees? Are you complaining he went more than once for information?
@@uonecar to be clear this city ordinance or policy or even a law created is still against our constitutional rights. Idk what you're not understanding.
@@dabzprincess92
“To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings generally.” Source: UNC School of Govt
The supreme court has already ruled on this numerous times and thus is a very slanted view by this news team
agreeed - news media must suck the boots of cops. If they do not, they will not be allowed in "news conferences". This is straight out of a dictatorship.
NO it hasn't .....""To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings, cases in which U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized a “right to record” concerns one category of public employees (police officers) engaged in one type of activity (carrying out public duties) in one type of area (traditional public forums).""
........ UNC School of Government Nov 2022.....
@@RichardHead23 Smith v Cummings turner v driver
@@jamesdavisjr6937 ,,,,, cases concerning filming police officers on the streets.....NOT about filming office workers in their building, office.
Sorry sovtard frauditor, you're wrong.
All the videos i seen on the internet, I have never ever seen anyones personal information posted. But I have seen police brutality and violence. Many videos of citizens rights being violated by sadistic bullies and thugs aka police officers. Also citizens tortured by police. Let’s not forget the citizens life’s ruined by abuse and incarcerated for nothing. They are the lucky ones, we have citizens murdered by overzealous ego driven police whose behavior is an exact copy of the NAZIS. Don’t forget the paralyzed and crippled with broken necks because some sadistic officer wanted to throw a handcuffed citizen to the ground. Now that cameras are bringing the truth to light the blue line gang wants to change the rights of the people and trash the constitution. You say they film with no reasonable purpose. Please see above. How much violence has been curtailed because a camera was present. No purpose? I don’t think so. Ask the citizen with the broken nose and broken neck. He’s in a wheelchair unable to take care of himself the rest of his life. WHAT HAPPENED TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? STOP QUALIFIED IMMUNITY!
Take the victim to an interview room or back room so they can sit & disclose information. Simple. This obviously doesn't overpower the Constitution, just a waste of time.
You know one of these morons is gonna come knocking on the door and then throw a fit about it when they aren’t allowed in to record.
Politicians can't legislate 1st Amendment rights away, but they sure waste taxpayer money on trying. Shameful.
Policy do not trump the constitution
This new policy needs to be challenged in court
It will. I hope.
This policy is pure hypocritical. They can video us all they want anywhere they want but we can't video them. So much for accountability.
Zero expectation of privacy in public. Freedom is scary deal with it.
But this is inside a govt building which is a nonpublic forum.
@@knowtheforumYou are not understanding the concept of “open to the public” means
@@wyldvigilante Well unfortunately you seem to believe auditors. Hint...they lie, which increases their YT hits.
“It is common for First Amendment auditors to claim that they have a First Amendment right to film in a government building because it is open to the public (or in some cases, simply because it is owned by the government). However, the fact that an area is held open to the public is not sufficient to establish it as a public forum for First Amendment purposes. The area must also be traditionally used for or expressly dedicated to expressive activity. The U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly stated that publicly owned or operated property “is not transformed into ‘public forum’ property merely because the public is permitted to freely enter and leave the grounds at practically all times and the public is admitted to the building during specified hours.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 178 (1983). Source: Coates’ Canons
@@knowtheforum I always question people who oppose American rights.
I also believe that if it’s not short and sweet it’s long and bitter like your comment.
@@knowtheforum I also believe that if YOU do not like the freedoms we have in America , rather than take those freedoms away from those of us who want them you can move to a nation that has no such freedoms or internet to annoy you with . No auditors. No filming in public and no Americans. Problem solved and everyone is happy
Policy means NOTHING.
There is zero right to privacy in public. The end!
""in public"" means in a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways etc, outdoor public areas ,,,,,THAT's where our free speech and our right to film is protected by the first amendment, NOT inside a building owned by the government/state/county/city/town = NON--PUBLIC FORUM.....CASE LAW .......""The First Amendment does not give citizens the right to exercise free speech rights on any government property at any time. “The State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.”---Adderley v. State of Florida, 385 US 39, 47 (1967).....that means the owners of ""public buildings"" = the government/state/county/city/town, has EXACTLY the same rights as the owners of private property. ANYONE can be trespassed from any property by the owner/manager.....CASE LAW....“The First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.” ------United States Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Association, 453 US 114, 129 (1981).
""To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case establishing a right to film public officials engaged in carrying out their official duties or a right to film inside public buildings, cases in which U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized a “right to record” concerns one category of public employees (police officers) engaged in one type of activity (carrying out public duties) in one type of area (traditional public forums).""
........ UNC School of Government Nov 2022....... If you or anyone thinks that any of these laws are unconstitutional then what you SHOULD do is film yourself being refused entry, leave, take your video to a lawyer write up a coherrent dossier explaining why you think it is unconstitutional, file a law suit and let a judge decide ..... What you do NOT do , is refuse to leave, argue with security or police, insult security or police , THEY are doing their job and applying the law as it stands, they don't decide or write laws or statutes they are applying what the actual law states , if you don't like it go see a lawyer and stop trying to shame or humiliate hardworking american citizens who are respecting the law , contributing to society earning their money and respect and paying taxes.
They are inside.
@@RichardHead23 who is the government buttercup?
Government property is public property smart one 😂
The police lobby is no different that a county park 😂it is not a restricted part of government like offices and other areas deemed restricted.
Libraries and police station lobbies and parking lots are perfectly legal to be filmed in per the constitution.
You are wrong
"" A county park"" is a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways , etc outdoor public areas ,,,,, INSIDE a building is NOT a traditional public forum ,,, they are NON--PUBLIC FORUMS or LIMITED public forums.......The Seventh Circuit has held that “the interior of a police station is not a public forum.”--------First Def. Legal Aid v. City of Chi., 319 F.3d 967, 968 (7th Cir. 2003)........,,The Southern District of New York has recognized New York Police Department meeting rooms as nonpublic forums.-------Latino Officers Ass’n v. City of New York, No. 97 CIV. 1384 (KMW), 1998 WL 80150, at *4(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 1998)......,,,,Likewise, the Central District of California has held that a police station is a nonpublic forum.------Boyd v. City of Hermosa Beach, No. CV0410528AGJTLX, 2007 WL 9717625, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007)...... ,,,In a decision affirmed by the Eighth Circuit, the Western District of Missouri held that a plaintiff had no constitutional right to videotape a police department lobby.-------Akins v. City of Columbia, No. 2:15-CV-04096-NKL, 2016 WL 4126549, at *17 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2,2016), aff’d sub nom. Akins v. Knight, 863 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2017)....... ,,,,Likewise, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a “no-filming” restriction imposed in the lobby of a police department as a reasonable restraint on free speech.-------Commonwealth v. Bradley, 2020 PA Super 109, 232 A.3d 747, 755 (2020)........Maybe you should learn to read instead of repeating youtube lawyers ,,, who seem to keep ending up in jail.
"" A county park"" is a TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM = sidewalks, streets, public parks, plazas, alleyways , etc outdoor public areas ,,,,, INSIDE a building is NOT a traditional public forum ,,, they are NON--PUBLIC FORUMS or LIMITED public forums.......The Seventh Circuit has held that “the interior of a police station is not a public forum.”........,,The Southern District of New York has recognized New York Police Department meeting rooms as nonpublic forums......,,,,Likewise, the Central District of California has held that a police station is a nonpublic forum....... ,,,In a decision affirmed by the Eighth Circuit, the Western District of Missouri held that a plaintiff had no constitutional right to videotape a police department lobby..... ,,,,Likewise, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a “no-filming” restriction imposed in the lobby of a police department as a reasonable restraint on free speech......Maybe you should learn to read instead of repeating youtube lawyers ,,, who seem to keep ending up in jail.
Policy doesn't trump law
The news LITERALLY covering news about news being limited 🤣
🎯✌️
so meta!
Sad that they are afraid of being recorded, im guessed the cops are doing something wrong or shady
The News channel not taking a one sided stance on their own rights is insane.
Policy ain’t law😂
People can tell the police they need to speak to them in private. They dont have to say anything private in the public lobby.
Unfortunately, there is nothing that you do with the police department that is Private ever it can be all requested as a Public Records request on body cam
@@JamesMadisonAudits so if a witness say something to the cops, everyone should know????
@@luistraversoteullet727 every audio and video recording in a police department, or from a body cam is available to the public through the freedom of information act.
@@straunwagner6322 @brentjeffries589
There is diferences between security cameras and frauditors cameras:
1. Security cameras are for security and if you foia them it will be redacted
2. Security cameras are on the roof, quite away from any private data, and have no sound.
3. Security cameras dont have a creep behind trying so hard to pick up a fight
@@straunwagner6322 There is diferences between security cameras and frauditors cameras:
1. Security cameras are for security and if you foia them it will be redacted (even bodycams can be redacted)
2. Security cameras are on the roof, quite away from any private data, and have no sound.
3. Security cameras dont have a creep behind trying so hard to pick up a fight
How embarrassing for the police to be so uneducated on this. I agree there may be private conversations in a police station, and there should also be closed rooms for report taking interviews or interrogations.
Public space has no privacy.
Incorrect. It's a limited public forum that does have expectations of privacy. And yes, even you do have an expectation of privacy in public to a certain extent. That's one of the reasons cops can't just search you on a whim. Maybe put down the frauditor talking points and look at the actual law.
@@DefiantHeartYou are very misinformed. I've been arrested over a dozen times for recording in public lobby of police stations, and then released without charges every single time 😂 If I broke a law, why haven't they ever charged me?
@@DefiantHeartNo it's not. It's OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Maybe you can explain why the government agencies can have cameras and audio recording inside the building and the citizens cannot. 🤔
Record in public court, especially a federal public court, see how that goes.
Derp,derp,dederp
Just remember, they have no problem recording you, but have a problem with you recording them... 😂
Lol. No doubt you'd be commenting. You're about to lose your cash flow. Hope you go on to get a legitimate job that doesn't require you making an a hole of yourself.
💯
There is no expectations of privacy in public. They must create privacy without infringing on our rights. That building is federally funded therefore it belongs to us.
@@americanaudit360true
Will "Policy" replace "The Constitutoin " ?
The police in the lobby has to create the privacy, move these citizens into a private are for private consultation.
Second, 25 feet us excessive. Most states have already ruled 14' is sufficient otherwise the police need to put up crime tape. If it's not a crime and it's in public view, again the police have to create the privacy.
Baiting criminals to commit crimes?? Who would ever do such a thing?? 😱
So you go in and say you are reporting a crime, if anyone else is within ear shot. Reporter can be taken to secure room. Easy enough if your not trying to avoid accountability.
Their goal is to hold public servants accountable
1A auditor: exists
Cops: I'm feeling baited!
So they don't have any video cameras in their police department? Or are they hypocrites?
Its crazy how they know what these auditors are trying to do, but yet they all still fall for it lol they literally can't help themselves....
Do as we say, not as we do.
A media organization apparently taking the position that government can restrict the First Amendment on the excuse that some people deserve privacy? Tell the cops to provide a private space for crime reports, don't use the public lobby to discuss sensitive private information. If that requires a change in police procedures, then make that change.
The 1st Amendment is more important than the violent offenders feelings
They can create a policy but it doesn’t override the constitution!
OMG excuses from government! Chitwood has loat his yankee mind 😢
Policy isn't law.
It just opens up the Court for law suits
policy is not law
Complete violation of the First Amendment.
Policy does not supersede constitutional law. If they want privacy they have to create it.
But there are cameras in the lobby which we can request. So how does that work? Someone could put that on line. They can take them in a room if necessary.
I think they just don’t like it and it’s understandable I feel that way too it makes me feel not good if I could see someone filming me like that so I think they feel the same way. They should NOT be allowed because it could hurt the persons feelings.
Freedom is scary. Obviously some aren't up for the responsibilities.
@@ak_getright9905 that's the problem you're thinking instead of knowing the law and your God given rights. Freedom is scary deal with it because there's no room for ANYONE's feelings.
@@dabzprincess92exactly
@@dabzprincess92 😂 y’all are clowns. I’m old enough to remember when people like you couldn’t use the internet. Those were the days.
Comical, no city, county, or state can pass a 'law' or 'ordinance' that overrides the Constitution. This new 'policy' by the city is unConstitutional and will be struck down. Any city, county, or state government that passes something like this that is unConstitutional should be fined a million dollars immediately.
If the public can freely walk there the public can freely walk there with a camera and record anything they can see, the law makes no distinction between human eyes and a camera.
Let me get this straight? I can stand there, listen, and take notes about what is being said, but can't record it?
How does that protect anyone?
🎯✌️
privacy must be created. scotus - it is the duty of the org to create the privacy.
when will they learn that the constitution is The Law of the Land - article VI us constitution.
this is an unconstitutional ruling.
how do these people seriously not know the FIRST rule in the constitution 🤦🏽♂️ genuinely pathetic
There is NO expectation of privacy in public. If someone was assaulted and needs privacy, they can ask for it, and it's the receptionists job to provide that comfort. It is not every citizens job to make other citizens feel comfortable.
And when the receptionist or others try to help make some privacy these auditors complain that it violates rights as well. - They have not protected our rights; they've taken our rights. And people like you helped it happen.
@lance3748 That's ignorant. Only a bad auditor would complain. Although I defend their right to take up any grievance they have with their government. Free speech is only free when everyone can peacefully have their say. I would never attack them for doing the right thing. Don't assume you know everything. That's called a God complex.
@@captainconstitution4238 I've seen other videos of auditors saying, "put up yellow tape if it's a crime scene." When they put it up they claim it's a violation of their rights.
I saw a waiting room at a DMV with walls put up to protect privacy and an auditor put his camera above the wall.
Auditing is not about protecting rights.
They are saying we don't care about Constitutional rights.
Policy doest trump federal law.
Sue Deland commission. This is public building.
There is no expectations of privacy in public.
If people want privacy the police department should have a room for them to go with their privacy
There is now way THE PEOPLE WE PAY HAVE RIGHT TO KEEP AMERICANS DOWN.
Not going to Florida on vacation anymore
Lets be honest here, they dont give two sh*ts about y'alls rights. It's all for clicks and views. Personally, I'm fine not recording in some places if it means others' privacy is protected.
Frauditors need to find other ways to make money like....getting a JOB!
How about go read all the case law both in the supreme Court of the United States and all the federal courts in every state the Supreme Court and all federal courts have ruled multiple times that the government has a right to restrict your rights in limited or nontraditional public forms, which would include libraries police station City Hall they’re not considered traditional public forms like sidewalks parks so their policy is law to govern that building if it’s unlimited or nontraditional public form, they can ask you not to record and is perfectly constitutional
Sue the blue until Pignorance subsides!
What are they hiding?
It must be something big. Otherwise, why go to all that trouble creating a policy that will certainly get deemed unconstitutional. Not to mention the negative publicity and likely boycotting of businesses in Deland. It only makes sense if you've got something that you'd be ashamed of if the public found out.
Maybe a girl doesn't want to tell the receptionist ",I was raped" while some creepy stranger is standing there with a camera.
Is it OK with you if we keep that secret?
The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing trumps the consitution. The fact that they think they can make a law that bans your consititution right is angering and baffling
That ordinance will be challenged.
And will be declared unconstitutional.
Filming civilians during their private transaction is the only exception I can see to the rule. I've worked in courthouses etc and they're boring just let the guy film it will get old fairly quick.
Great job government setting new laws to stop these hateful, corrupt and harassing CZcamsrs.
afraid of the people who know rights
Its unconstitutional and if they fight the arrest. They will win" then file a law suit against the police and city!!
Public spaces are NOT private areas. If you want privacy, you have to create privacy. There are laws in this country for a reason, and it’s NOT to protect your FEELINGS.
If the police don't want people to hear the conversations in the PUBLIC lobby, then they should probably bring people making complaints into a private room 🤷
They always claim they were making a records request and that they are “working on a story, but can’t talk about it until published”. It’s all a modern day scam to try and provoke a situation that they can file a BS lawsuit over. They are just minor criminals who would rather work a con-game than work a legit job like the rest of the world. I fully support the limitations being enacted in police stations and government officers against these asshats.
This County must have a lot of money to do that
Commonwealth versus Bradly 2020 a PA case has been held constitutional preventing filming inside lobbies of the police station
Good. They should do this in every states!
You would think a media company would fight for the 1st amendment 😢
This is just going to make it worse. They may want to get a new legal counsel for the city.
They hate our rights 😮
The laws will be struck down as unconstitutional.
It's a policy, which is not law.
@@rotagbhd you are correct
They need to get a new lawyer. One that will tell them this is unconstitutional and any attempt to enforce it will be expensive and generate a lot of negative publicity. The auditors do not operate in a vacuum. This story also shows how local news licks the boots of cops and government in order to keep getting access and stories.
WKMG, you sul have included some of these First amendment auditors videos. Show how vile and disruptive they are to public employees. This is not a complete picture of the situation. Show their videos so people can see that they are only there to incite confrontations in order to make money on CZcams.
In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
". . the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24 (1923)]
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966)]
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime."
[Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d 486, at 489 (1956)]
". . .there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights."
[Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 946 (1973)]
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point-- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people?
Turner v. Driver, No. 16-10312 (5th Cir. 2017), is a 2017 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that affirmed the First Amendment right to record the police.
We expect our public officials to create privacy for us. In most of these audits, the infrastructure isn't set up to maintain privacy. In other words, they aren't offering opportunities for privacy, or private spaces. In the future, there will be restricted, private booths in post offices, DMVs, and City Halls, like a priest's closet. You don't see priests taking confession in a pew. Citizens, as well, have a responsibility to maintain their own privacy when in public. Ask for a separate room. Wear a disguise. To government workers, it's just simply about education. That's the service these auditors are providing through popular but not-so-popular means. This is life in the 21st century.
They need to take all that talk to a private room, not the lobby
They'll scream policy doesn't supercede law. But then they're too stupid to know that statutes are laws. They think those are exclusive terms. So, their views on policy and the weight it carries doesn't impress me either.
F media for "both sidesing" this, and f the city for scapegoating SA victims as if its on strangers to make sure YOUR INFO IS SECURE. THATS ON YOU.
They could write 1 million policies, but POLICY dont TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION, unless you make a LAW, then you'll get sue for violation of the person's constitution rights...FEELINGS is not LAW or a CRIME..
To DeLand police and police across the nation. Unlike cancer, if the police would just ignore first amendment auditors, they WILL go away. Every clown (police) gives them exactly the content they're looking for, and which we are very much entertained by.
lmao. that policy will land their tax payers to pay good money.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That policy is unconstitutional.