Cop Protects 1st Amendment

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 4 years ago in Misc

Deputy Stan Lenic deserves a medal for defending free speech rights against airport officials. Action starts at 1:30
There are 52 comments:
Male 2,357
[quote]Now that case dealt more with money iirc[/quote]
Sounds about right... For some reason my brain made a permanent link between "Hindu God Krishna" and "public forum". Probably some trick I used to remember the case name from my time at University.
0
Reply
Male 820
I hate people like this. Technicly obeying the law, but making a spectacle of themselves, hoping to incite an incident to gain fame. In a just society, the airport offical would have been allowed to dive them from the property with a horse whip.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]But they they started posted shots thought could easily identify the person and to ME that crossed the line.[/quote]
Sorry but these people know what they look like. If you don`t want to be a potential item of public ridicule, you should present yourself in public better. It may be in bad taste to mock, but it`s not like they pulled one of these people`s ass cheeks out of their jorts or anything.
0
Reply
Female 2,764
Listypoos- I was wondering about harassment and/or slander. Something to look into, just out of curiosity.

CrakrJak- So minors have rights against their picture being taken or posted or both? I figure there are no "internet laws" either. When it comes down to this issue OR starting up laws (aka censorship) on the internet, I would choose to not have the internet censored. Only because I know that once things are governed it will go far beyond reasonable.

BoredFrank- Your comment made me laugh and I did like the site when it first came out because you always saw just the ass crack. Or you saw just the ill-fitting clothes, etc. But they they started posted shots thought could easily identify the person and to ME that crossed the line.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Exactly my point. Now that case dealt more with money iirc, but it`s still been used to curb free speech in airports. I don`t agree with the ruling, but if that`s the current law then that`s what it is.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Everyone here is congratulating the police, but I`m pretty sure he was wrong. Your supreme court has upheld that airports are not considered public forums.[/quote]
Indeed; International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee. Now, whether or not the decision of that case was just is another matter... Either way, the airport is not a public forum currently.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Everyone here is congratulating the police, but I`m pretty sure he was wrong. Your supreme court has upheld that airports are not considered public forums.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
And yes, Peopleofwalmart is still up and running, because they aren`t doing anything illegal. Expectation of privacy doesn`t apply to elephantine crackers exposing eight yards of ass-crack in public. Mockery may offend some, but it isn`t illegal.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
The TSA is composed entirely of clueless shiiteheads who are still butt-hurt they missed being Nazis by 60 years.

Eff the TSA.
0
Reply
Male 330
Good job law enforcement. The old guy was a complete ass. Who gives a crap if they hand out info and film. Whole lot of worry over nothing. The old guy just reinforced the idea of "question everything." The camera man and hot girl where being very polite and professional. Nice work.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
HalfPintRoo: "Crossing the line" camera wise varies state to state. In some anyone can film, they are called `one-party consent` states. Other states require both (or all) parties to consent to being filmed, they are known as `two-party consent` states. Each state also has their rules on legal age, in terms of filming too.

Here in Illinois, If a 16 year old boy takes pictures (non-nude) of his 15 year old GF he could be in serious trouble, because she`s not old enough to give consent.
0
Reply
Male 315
What was this guys so afraid of?
0
Reply
Male 3,147
"Difference of interpretation I guess. My opinion is that the legal right after photographing/videotaping people stop at posting them on the internet w/hurtful captions. "

Roo, if the hurtful comments were untrue or exaggerated/just malicious then the laws of defamation may be a way of addressing it in court. If it`s photos of the same person then the harassment laws here would also apply.

0
Reply
Male 30
The best "action" is at 9:50 where the cop tells the guy who dosent know anything to F off!
0
Reply
Female 2,764
Difference of interpretation I guess. My opinion is that the legal right after photographing/videotaping people stop at posting them on the internet w/hurtful captions.

And yes- the cop does look like the hellraiser guy
0
Reply
Male 379
@HalfPintRoo
That "where is the line" business works both ways. Where is the line of protection from being bullied and outright oppression of our right to know? The fact is... if you`re on public or federal property, there is no line. and that`s the way it should be.
0
Reply
Male 14,334
Anyone think that guy in the thumbnail kinda looks like Hellraiser???



Well without the pins of course.
0
Reply
Female 2,764
You missed my point.

I`m asking where the LINE is drawn. I know the law. I know anyone can photograph and videotape anything and anyone they want. I`m saying, why is it then legal to POST those all over the internet with mean, hurtful, hateful comments.

Not this video- it just made me ask the question- where is the line?

There is a difference between "Stay home if you don`t want to be photographed" and "Stay home if you don`t want to be bullied and have your life ruined"

COME ON
0
Reply
Male 182
the camera guy was the most annoying of all, he kept preaching his crap when the the cop already said "i wont stop you, you arent breaking any of my rules"
0
Reply
Male 2,988
officer that knows the laws > flyers and camera people >> airport douche

i also found it funny that when the airport guy is trying to get the ID from the cameraman and gets turned down, he looks to the cop and says he would like to get it from the cop and winks at him while saying it. cop continues to do his job properly and tells him he cant do that and the look on the airport guy`s face is priceless as if to say "poo i`ve lost this fight and i cant get the cop to play along"
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Polite, well-informed, even-handed cop doing his job without fear or favour. Good to see.
0
Reply
Male 26
What was the guys name filming? I don`t recall the 1st amendment stating the freedom to be annoying f*cktards.. Who has two thumbs and will never go to whatever his site is and cares less about other peoples opinions? Hopefully everyone
0
Reply
Male 12
Cheeseb,

The application process and associated bond fee that the administrator is a rule for filming movies or other commercial ventures. This in no way relates to personal freedoms. The administrator was just hoping to use it as a loop hole to get his way.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@cheeseb
The application process is to get permission for COMMERCIAL photography, as in filming a movie or documentary, and it requires proof of million dollar liability insurance. It does not apply to personal photography, your analogy is ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 265
Didn`t they say something about an application process? So it`s fine to do this, but it`s just decent to let the airport know that you want to, just like any sensible person would do.
Like if you just met someone, it would be cool if you invited them over to your house for dinner, but it`s not cool for that someone to just walk in and start eating your food.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
Actualy there is something as portrait right, i don`t know if the states have it and or which states. but it means that even if they film you in a public location you have the right to refuse to be filmed or photographed at which point they no longer can use any footage of you, my photo was taken for a news paper article once, and they had to drop it. (i was just out walkind the dog, they were doing a piece about that park or smth)

Awsome cop btw.
0
Reply
Male 83
damn hippies causing trouble and now they got a bunch of jacka sses to follow them on twitter...objective achieved
0
Reply
Male 1,377
HalfPintRoo What if?: Someone DID want to be filmed, DID want the flyer and DID want to be on the internet, but they couldn`t because the people attempting to inform others about this weren`t there because they didn`t want to offend you or your right to privacy.

Who has more rights? You?? Them??

If you want privacy stay home. If you are in public anyone can see you and they just might see you in person or on the internet. Remember that next time you go out. Disguise yourself if necessary or become a hermit and recluse.

0
Reply
Male 1,151
I love how we have great cops in this world that take the time to get it right and WASTE THEIR TIME OVER PETTY SQUABBLES SO SOME GODDAMNED TRUST FUND KIDS CAN HAND OUT A FLYER!!!
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@HalfPintRoo
In the U.S., it is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on public property. If that bothers you, stay home.
0
Reply
Male 17
HalfPintRoo I`m not entirely sure (as a citizen of the UK) but I`m sure if you were to approach the people filming and ask to not take part in the video or have your face shown they would have blocked it (like the men at 12:32). I`m not sure if this is a law or just general common decency but I have found that if someone ever complains their face can and has always been blurred in everything like this I have seen.
0
Reply
Female 2,764
by the way, I was NOT in this video, they clearly cut that part out (good on them) and were only showing people who took the flyer.

But I still want to know why they can film people and put them on the internet without their permission.

Like people of walmart (is that site still going?)

It` s not right that those taking the picture of someone to post on the internet just to mock them (bully them) has more rights then the person who is in the picture.
0
Reply
Male 1,497
Watching th old guy be bitter was the best part.
Kudos to the cop for accually following the law.
0
Reply
Female 2,764
I was flying out while this was happening and I have to tell you, I didn`t want to be filmed, I didn`t want the flyer and I didn`t want to be on the internet.

I`ve had my fair share of "we are allowed to film in a public place we are doing nothing wrong" and it happens all over NYS. At what point is there a line drawn?

Ok, so I`m filmed on surveillance cameras, security cameras, etc. They don`t bother me, they don`t end up on the internet.

Being filmed by douche bags with their agenda that may or may not go viral with my face in it... when is that crossing the line.

I know I`m going to get major hate from most all of you here and I am all for their rights and what not, but I`m just asking a serious question. When is it crossing the line?????
0
Reply
Male 17
Cameraman and Flyer girl seem like douchey hippies.
Airport man sounds like a douche.
Deputy Stan seems like a stand up guy!
0
Reply
Male 2,167
who owns airports? the public. otherwise,it`s a private airport.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
After a bit of reading, I found that:
1) Apparently in the US courts have upheld that if you even place your bags on the x-ray conveyor that you`ve implicitly agreed to be searched and CANNOT revoke consent (unlike Canada).
2) Airports in the US don`t really go by the same free speech rules as in the rest of the US. As soon as you walk in the terminal your free speech counts for very little.

So maybe the airport guys were right here, but they are being dicks about it.
0
Reply
Male 642
they are clearly not interested in giving people information.. they are interested in being famous.. see how that woman is flirting with the camera? She just wants to bug people for the sake of bugging people on the off-chance that something happens and they can be in the news..
0
Reply
Male 642
how is that free speech if they are on an airport that is obviously someone`s property. Free speech is only protected in public, not on an airport, not in your office.
0
Reply
Male 3,619
crazies fighting crazies over crazy things
all i got to say is that`s cray-cray
0
Reply
Female 2,525
My point is that it shouldn`t be a special occasion. It should happen every time.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
Kudos to the deputy.
0
Reply
Male 12
Zombunny "No one "deserves a medal" for defending free speech."

I disagree, everyone deserves a medal for defending freedoms.
0
Reply
Male 72
Good point made, Good for the Deputy. But I would much rather have that time back to maybe go take a shat so I don`t be late for my appointment. Now I gotta go to the bathroom.
0
Reply
Male 533
How else are we supposed to change our law enforcement culture, Zombunny? I agree that it is sad, but the popo are typically rewarded with a mandatory paid vacation when they royally muss up.
0
Reply
Male 12
These are the cases where you see how important it is to have informed, professional law enforcement.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
No one "deserves a medal" for defending free speech. It`s his job. How sad is it that we feel the need to applaud and hand out cookies when a cop actually upholds the constitution like he`s supposed to?
0
Reply
Male 3,364
Most of what Alex Jones puts out is pure paranoid tinfoil hat crap, but this was actually pretty awesome, and so is that sheriff.
0
Reply
Male 182
I wonder what was on the flyer?
0
Reply
Male 3,612
filming permits are only needed it you are making a movie
0
Reply
Male 533
While the cop was definitely in the right, both parties in the argument seem a bit looney.
0
Reply
Female 8,044
Link: Cop Protects 1st Amendment [Rate Link] - Deputy Stan Lenic deserves a medal for defending free speech rights against airport officials. Action starts at 1:30
0
Reply