How can we go forward without a specific case? It's the dynamics of the specific case that will drive the development of a solution, not just sitting at your keyboard and typing "That's a bad thing, Dude?"
I'm not saying that there absolutely must be a law against such behavior, but the existing laws (federal especially) only serve to give the aggrieved the right to sue for compensation as redress. All too often comments are made about cops getting their wrist slapped or a paid vacation with nothing really changing. Write a law against such behavior and then enforce it
shocker: - what a novel concept!).
Pour encourager les autres if nothing else.
stay safe.
We are already going forward without a specific case. I don't think it's good practice to problem-solve without consideration of circumstances outside of a specific case. I'm not saying that having specific cases to consider is bad, I'm just saying that I don't think that not being able to discuss a specific case because the powers to be say so is reason to abandon the discussion as a whole.
Re writing law to fix unlawful harassment/detainment/arrest issues: I'm saying that I believe there are, arguably, already laws* that could apply but they are not enforced, at least not in these sort of cases (police harassing/detaining/arresting citizens for filming). Assuming that outlawing the behavior is the desired path, you have (at least) two forks now, considering applicable laws* already exist but are not enforced. You can modify the law in attempt to cause it to be enforced in the future, or you can do ... what, to try and get the current law applied in situations of harassment/detainment/arrest? Pressure the PA's office? Campaign against the PA? Note that in other cases of the law even being egregiously violated by LEOs, sometimes they aren't prosecuted. In what way could the law be changed that would lead to a PA prosecuting a LEO for an act that was already illegal but previously not prosecuted? And what can be done to cause a PA to prosecute an officer for violations of the law without modifying the law? I honestly don't know, and I'm genuinely asking for discussion on the topic. But that is only one aspect of this discussion.
The other is, how do we defend/advocate an uncompromising stance on an activity which is used to do something that is immoral and even detested by the majority of the population? For instance, do we need to more clearly define the activity (aka "the right") in a way that excludes the immoral behavior? Such would open up the possibility of legal prohibition of the immoral activity without compromising "the right." Do we need to offer practical solutions to prevent the use of the activity for immoral purposes, while avoiding legislation that would outright prohibit the activity when used for immoral purpose? I honestly do wonder if we should "redefine" "the right" in a way that excludes the immoral behavior or if we should simply take the position that not all immoral behavior should be prohibited by law, and present the argument that some immoral behavior must be combated using other practical solutions other than pure use of force. I'd love to hear what someone else thinks about this. It is basically an instance of the classic "should everything that is 'wrong' be 'illegal' and if not then how do we decide which of the former should be the latter" in the filming/recording from a public place context.
*For instance, Texas unlawful restraint law makes no blanket exception for law enforcement, defining in the law enforcement exception that the restraint must be "for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested." In my opinion this would apply to LEO harassing citizen for filming by detaining them...
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm#20.02