Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: Illinois just made it illegal to videotape LEO

  1. #1
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139

    Illinois just made it illegal to videotape LEO

    Illinois for ya. Recording LEO is now a Felony.

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ill...-media-silent/
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    It passed by a huge margin .. veto is not likely.

    I don't think it does what people think it does.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614
    Personally do not think this will hold water......we shall see.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    A government of cockroaches

    Only a government that lives like cockroaches in the darkness would pass a law criminalizing the act of turning on the light.http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ill...-media-silent/
    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/S...1342ham006.pdf
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    I believe the Illinois Supreme Court ruled backed in March 2014, that the law against filming, recording, Government Employees, police officers, etc

    was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    My .02

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Illinois Supreme Court Unanimously Overturns the Country's Strictest Recording Ban

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/20/il...nimously-overt
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6684656.story

    Nothing prevents cockroaches from legislating as they will tyranny. Remember that the president is from Chicago, Illinois.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/20/il...nimously-overt
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6684656.story

    Nothing prevents cockroaches from legislating as they will tyranny. Remember that the president is from Chicago, Illinois.
    Correction: POTUS from Kenya....

  8. #8
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    I believe the Illinois Supreme Court ruled backed in March 2014, that the law against filming, recording, Government Employees, police officers, etc

    was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    My .02

    CCJ
    The law repeats private conversation several times, but that does not mean the law will not be abused. I got a headache reading it, repetitive and overly long. But if I comprehend it properly recording police in the line of duty is legal.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,614
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The law repeats private conversation several times, but that does not mean the law will not be abused. I got a headache reading it, repetitive and overly long. But if I comprehend it properly recording police in the line of duty is legal.
    Wish it were so, but I read it the other way.

    +1 on the headache
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    Disclaimer: I am SO not a lawyer.

    Directly from: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/S...1342ham006.pdf

    Sec. 14-1 (g)
    For purposes of this Article, "surreptitious" means obtained or made by stealth or deception, or executed through secrecy or concealment.
    Everything in Sec. 14-2. Elements of the offense, uses that word. Just make it almost completely obvious that you're recording, and it shouldnt be an issue. If it is, take it BACK to the SC and have them toss it, AGAIN.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Let's send ONUS off to Illinois to get the record straight.

    Go to Illinois ONUS for us.

    Regards

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Do not go to Ill-annoyed.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    If I recall, common law has, for telephone recording & other, that if one suspects fraud or an illegal act is imminent then you can record regardless of the eavesdropping statue.

    I can't remember the case though ... anyone has recollection on this aspect?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Since police are considered on duty 24/7 or so they like to say, I would argue that they are subject to be recorded 24/7, no permission needed, provided you are recording, filming them and only them...

    My .02

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,095
    The law, like most similar laws in the country only prohibit intercepting/recording/whatever you want to call it, "Private Conversations" (similar terminology in other states).

    This law defines a private conversation thus:
    For the purposes of this Article, "private conversation" means any oral communication between 2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation. A reasonable expectation shall include any expectation recognized by law, including, but not limited to, an expectation derived from a privilege, immunity, or right established by common law, Supreme Court rule, or the Illinois or United States Constitution.
    The article, like most, is biased and as such, hyperbolizes portions while completely ignoring others, in this case, specifically the portion in red.

    I think they are more infuriated that the penalty is greater if it's a LEO being recorded. But if you think of it rationally without a preconceived LEO hating thought process, you will see that it makes since.

    That is the key phrase in all of these laws.

    Plus it only prohibits surreptitious recordings of "Private Conversations". So that is another portion of the article that in solely meant to inflame.
    Last edited by notalawyer; 12-11-2014 at 01:52 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    It passed by a huge margin .. veto is not likely.

    I don't think it does what people think it does.
    Doesnt need a veto. It isnt law. in fact it is banned from being law and from what I can see illinois should face a contempt of court charge.

    The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment scrutiny. Illinois has criminalized the nonconsensual recording of most any oral communication, including recordings of public officials doing the public’s business in public and regardless of whether the recording is open or surreptitious.
    http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/150619395.html

    Not to mention the Constitution trumps any and all other laws and nullifies any that are contradictory and in this case the First Amendment nullifies this so-called 'law' as had the 7th circuit court, yet they tried to pass the law anyway. Contempt ruling
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by notalawyer View Post
    The law, like most similar laws in the country only prohibit intercepting/recording/whatever you want to call it, "Private Conversations" (similar terminology in other states).

    This law defines a private conversation thus:

    The article, like most, is biased and as such, hyperbolizes portions while completely ignoring others, in this case, specifically the portion in red.

    I think they are more infuriated that the penalty is greater if it's a LEO being recorded. But if you think of it rationally without a preconceived LEO hating thought process, you will see that it makes since.

    That is the key phrase in all of these laws.

    Plus it only prohibits surreptitious recordings of "Private Conversations". So that is another portion of the article that in solely meant to inflame.
    I disagree. The legislation intentionally dilutes legal protection for the right to record police, by declaring (contrary to established precedent) that it's somehow possible to "eavesdrop" on a police officer "while in the performance of his or her official duties", or that it is possible for an officer to even have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" "while in the performance of his or her official duties", when indeed it is not.
    Last edited by marshaul; 12-11-2014 at 12:46 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I disagree. The legislation intentionally dilutes legal protection for the right to record police, by declaring (contrary to established precedent) that it's somehow possible to "eavesdrop" on a police officer "while in the performance of his or her official duties", or that it is possible for an officer to even have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" "while in the performance of his or her official duties", when indeed it is not.
    +1

    ccj
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I disagree. The legislation intentionally dilutes legal protection for the right to record police, by declaring (contrary to established precedent) that it's somehow possible to "eavesdrop" on a police officer "while in the performance of his or her official duties", or that it is possible for an officer to even have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" "while in the performance of his or her official duties", when indeed it is not.
    Exactly....there is no expectation of privacy when it comes to cops performing their duties in public (or in private IMO)...so recording of cops in public can continue even with this new law.

    Sure, cops will say you can't. They continue to say this today even in all 50 states.

  20. #20
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I disagree. The legislation intentionally dilutes legal protection for the right to record police, by declaring (contrary to established precedent) that it's somehow possible to "eavesdrop" on a police officer "while in the performance of his or her official duties", or that it is possible for an officer to even have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" "while in the performance of his or her official duties", when indeed it is not.
    +1

    <3 u marshaul
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727
    i was talking to an LEO in memphis about a month ago at starbucks. We discussed several recent news articles regarding police. He seemed to be fairly supportive of conservative topics until I asked why the big fuss about recording LEOs and he became furious. he said " i just dont like it, it makes me uncomfortable" i tried to respond that it could protect him from someone making false claims but i quickly dropped the subject. I thought to myself, you're just out in public, if you're not doing anything wrong, why the fear of being recorded?
    Last edited by Kopis; 12-12-2014 at 11:23 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    LOL What YOU say to a cop is used AGAINST you.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    i was talking to an LEO in memphis about a month ago at starbucks. We discussed several recent news articles regarding police. He seemed to be fairly supportive of conservative topics until I asked why the big fuss about recording LEOs and he became furious. he said " i just dont like it, it makes me uncomfortable" i tried to respond that it could protect him from someone making false claims but i quickly dropped the subject. I thought to myself, you're just out in public, if you're not doing anything wrong, why the fear of being recorded?
    why did you drop it? was he reaching for his guns? One to shoot you with and one to plant on you? lol

    You did tell him that he could get a different vocation, right?

    You should have pulled out your recorder right there.

  24. #24
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Kopis View Post
    i was talking to an LEO in memphis about a month ago at starbucks. We discussed several recent news articles regarding police. He seemed to be fairly supportive of conservative topics until I asked why the big fuss about recording LEOs and he became furious. he said " i just dont like it, it makes me uncomfortable" i tried to respond that it could protect him from someone making false claims but i quickly dropped the subject. I thought to myself, you're just out in public, if you're not doing anything wrong, why the fear of being recorded?
    Whenever I hear of something like this, meet a cop like this, or see a video of a cop that uses the "because I said so" response, I have to wonder, how big of a piece of $%@# was his father? Gotta be some serious Daddy/authority issues going on.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  25. #25
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    I personally like the idea. There are far too few protections for our blue clad saviors.
    More laws I would like to see:
    Illegal to make non-flattering eye contact with LEO
    Illegal to stand in any line in front of LEO
    Illegal to not pull over and let LEO pass regardless of status of emergency lights.
    Illegal not to answer questions asked by LEO
    Perhaps a law to requiring bowing to LEO if you encounter them on the sidewalk or inside a building.
    A national "submission day" where each school quarter in grades 8-12 the school brings in cops to teach children how to behave during police encounters. (Each child SHALL be handcuffed for a few minutes)
    Last edited by twoskinsonemanns; 12-13-2014 at 04:33 AM.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •