...16 years [ago] Los Angeles police officers beating Rodney King were filmed by amateur videographer George Holliday on the night of March 3, 1991. The officers’ acquittal at the end on April 29, 1992 sparked riots in Los Angeles.The original motivation for the law was to deal with things like "happy slapping" ("violent attack is filmed by an accomplice, typically with a camera phone, for the amusement of the attacker’s friends"), but they've intentionly drafted it to cover citizen journalists of the Holliday type.
If Holliday were to film a similar scene of violence in France today, he could end up in prison as a result of the new law, said Pascal Cohet, a spokesman for French online civil liberties group Odebi. And anyone publishing such images could face up to five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (US$98,537), potentially a harsher sentence than that for committing the violent act.
Think it couldn't happen here?
पोस्ट्स
१८ टिप्पण्या:
Of course it is illegal to videotape illegal activity in France. They are worried that the cameramen would unconditionally surrender.
Trey
There's this, A Bartow County, Georgia couple who caught a cop on a homemade speed camera are threatened with arrest.:
While police in 23 jurisdictions throughout Georgia have embraced photo enforcement, a couple is being threatened with jail this week for having turned the speed cameras on police. Lee and Teresa Sipple spent $1200 to mount three video cameras and a radar speed unit outside their Bartow County home.
The couple intended merely to harass neighbors into slowing down outside their home until they caught a Kennesaw police officer Richard Perrone allegedly speeding past at 12 to 17 MPH over the speed limit. After Sipple informed Bartow County officials, a police deputy arrived to inform the couple that Perrone intended to charge them with stalking.
And a number of people have been harassed and arrested for filming cops doing their jobs--or most likely, not doing their jobs. Whether any of these have held up to court scrutiny I don't know. Mostly sounds like the typical cop as bully, not institionalized policy.
So, yes, it could happen here, but I'm more and more inclined to lean towards David Brin's Transparent Society.
Don't they also contend that mocking French is "racist"? I have some friends in Europe and am constantly amazed at how readily they self-censor.
The French are in absolute denial of their societal problems. This is one example. Another is that the French have no "race" problem with their "Youths". Reason?
It is illegal to gather or analyze any statistics based on race. No numbers, no proof, no problem.
So there is no problem with unemployment among Muslim youth, because there is no unemployment among Muslim Youth
non ipso facto
Think it couldn't happen here?
I think anything is possible depending on how well the law is crafted, although, I will confess I never heard of happy slapping or new it was such a problem that it warranted legislation, even in France. I guess I live a sheltered life in flyover country.
As for the comments on incidents in the US of people arrested or threatened with arrest for filming such actions, I would defer to Ann as to the legal grounds for it. A cop can pretty much arrest you for anything but whether it has legal grounds is another issue.
It could happen here. It does happen here. There are differences, though. It is legal in this country for local police to raise revenue by taking a picture of your car's registration plate while it may be speeding or running a red light at 3 AM, and then sending you a violation notice in the mail. The French and some other EU nations have made Holocaust denial a crime. Germany outlaws displaying the swaztika. In this country we are on the verge of outlawing use of the N word or the F word (I don't mean F__k, which is the word of choice for lefty bloggers). What can one say? Speeding, running red lights, Holocaust denial, displaying the swaztika, and using the N or F words are all abhorrent. Why shouldn't there be laws against these things? Why shouldn't these horrible acts be punished summarily without the bother and expense of a trial? For that matter, why not make it illegal to utter things that might offend certain groups that learn about them via an email from someone who was not present when the alleged utterances were made?
Rodney King-style trouble? On the contrary- the French police are more likely to be the victims of a videotaped beatdown!
This is a form of information control perfected only under authoritarians like Stalin or Mao. No bad news reported means no bad news, or so they believe. But the underlying rot in France continues apace. The Muslims are taking over, and the West is just sweeping the place, tidying up, before they move in.
As Mark Steyn observed, "...there's very little difference between living under Exquisitely Refined Multicultural Sensitivity and sharia."
cameras protecting other cameras
It has happened here: McCain Feingold Bi-Partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. The 1st amendment doesn't mean what it says. Since electoral speech can be curbed to combat the perception of i9mpropriety, curbing speech to prevent disorder is much less threatening to democracy. All we need is the right legislator.
Such tyranny is why strict constructionalists need to be on the USSC: "Congress shall make no law" should mean that congress can make no law, rather than that they can make a few laws if they're really, really important.
I used to like to imagine to myself how I would react if someone committed an egregiously unjust act against me. It is a form of emotional masturbation, it is pleasurable to wallow in self righteousness. I don't think I am alone in this indulgence. Fantasizing about being arrested for recording a crime for the purpose of exposing that crime would be an example.
"...but they've intentionly drafted it to cover citizen journalists of the Holliday type." That is an unsubstantiated claim made by the french civil liberties activist. It seems more likely that the law's reference to "professional journalists" was a well meaning but inadequate attempt to differentiate the intentions of those who record a violent act. They want to punish those who record violent assaults for the purpose of glorifying them, and where the person taking the pictures is most likely involved in the assault.
So, try assuming that the intentions of others are honorable. That though they fall short they mean well. That maybe Prof. Althouse purposely left out the source of the above quoted statement to underscore the problem being not the intention of the law but the imperfection of its language.
(And as for me being hopelessly idealistic, it has been demonstrated to me countless times that people do live up to expectations.)
Glenn Reynolds has suggested more than once making it explicitly legal to videotape law enforcement officers and activities happening in public places.
One problem is provenance; how do you know a particular tape wasn't altered or edited before you see it? But that's a different issue and no reason to ban the taping in the first place.
I have some friends in Europe and am constantly amazed at how readily they self-censor.
You don't even have to go that far. Canada and Mexico both practice widespread censorship, as well. The Canadian government's power to slap gag orders on the press is pretty alarming, and would be moreso if they didn't have convenient access to American media that could ignore the orders.
So if you're not a "real journalist" in France, you're not allowed to film stuff? How do they define "real"? I checked DailyKos, and they said you're not a real journalist if you're gay, or something. Has France consulted with those guys? Because I know there's been a lot of progressive concern about that issue, the threat of non-real... gay... journalism, uhh... issue, thing. But they can totally identify who's a real journalist, is the thing, which is a valuable skill.
Pogo,
In fairness, on the sharia issue, the Women's Studies department is a lot less likely to have you decapitated.
Pogo,
In fairness, on the sharia issue, the Women's Studies department is a lot less likely to have you decapitated.
In that Women's study's departments ARE like Afghan women. The favored punishment is not beheading. Pogo remember Kipling?:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.
The Drill SGT's right. A teacher would probably be prosecuted for teaching Kipling these days, though.
Steyn was referring to the fact that Multiculturalism, over time, becomes ever more restrictive of activity that might be deemed offensive to some favored group. In England this meant removing pictures of pigs and certain fast food ads with ice cream ads that -to a mad mullah- seemed to read 'Allah' in arabic.
In certain French neighborhoods, non-Muslim women have taken to wearing scarves to avoid being attacked by Muslims (er, I mean "Youths"). In Wisconsin, even a long-time lefty law professor with all sorts of liberal cred gets smacked down when he even deigns discuss another culture.
Women's studies programs flourished under American rule, but set the stage for takeover by rigid fundamentalists who will use multiculturalism like a weapon against them.
And I wonder how long gay marriage will last in Canada when Muslims take over their city councils?
Just one more indication of how bad things are in Europe. Instead of addressing the problems, let's make it illegal to bring the problems to light!
Oh well, can't say we aren't headed down the same censorship road. Thank you, McCain-Feingold.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा