The interaction between the auditors and security personnel raises fundamental questions about the application of the First Amendment, which guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. Specifically, the incident revolves around the right to record in public spaces, a right that has been affirmed by numerous court decisions.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects the freedom of speech and the press. This protection extends to the right to record matters of public interest in public spaces. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the government cannot prohibit individuals from recording in public spaces unless there is a significant and compelling interest at stake, such as national security or privacy concerns.
The auditors' primary defense rests on the First Amendment, which has been interpreted by courts to include the right to gather information, especially in public forums. In Glik v. Cunniffe (2011), the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that a private citizen has the right to record public officials in a public space. This case underscores the principle that recording in public spaces is a protected activity, crucial for transparency and accountability in governance.
The distinction between public and private property is critical in this context. The auditors were on public property, which generally allows for greater freedom of expression. The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Grace (1983) affirmed that public places such as sidewalks and parks are traditional public forums where individuals can exercise their First Amendment rights freely.
The security personnel's argument centered on security protocols, likely referencing concerns about espionage or unauthorized documentation of sensitive areas. However, courts have been clear that any restrictions on First Amendment rights must pass strict scrutiny. This means the government must show that the restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. In this case, general security concerns without specific, imminent threats are insufficient to override constitutional protections.
Law enforcement officers and security personnel often operate under the doctrine of qualified immunity, which protects them from liability unless they violated a "clearly established" statutory or constitutional right. In cases involving the First Amendment, officers must be aware that the right to record is well-established, as seen in Glik and subsequent rulings. Missteps in enforcing security protocols at the expense of constitutional rights could potentially lead to legal consequences.
The incident highlights a critical need for improved training for security personnel and law enforcement officers. Understanding the balance between enforcing security protocols and respecting civil rights is essential.
THIS VIDEO IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ..
This video was created to educate citizens about constitutionally protected activities, law, and civilian rights, and emphasize the importance of constitutional awareness.
FAIR USE NOTICE.. this video may contain copyright material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, reviews and news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.
Disclaimer: NONE of our videos should be considered a "call to action." We are not attorneys. Our videos should not be construed as legal advice. You should seek legal counsel if you believe that you are a victim of police misconduct. The facts presented in our videos are not indicative of our personal opinions. Laws, case law, ordinances, policies, legal doctrine, and all other jurisprudence is subject to the interpretation of the court. The videos shown are designed to be educational, and informative based on the information available at the time the video was published. All claims made are alleged.
Original video: / @illinoistyrantnews
First Amendment audit 1st Amendment audit cops get owned id refusal dui checkpoint refusal auditing britain Amagansett press
#idrefusal #CopGetsOwned #dismissed #firstamendmentaudit #4thAmendment #CopWatch #Trespassing #Dismissed #copdismissed #RookieCop #1aAudit #Cop #Police #CopsOwned #1stamendmentaudit #Trespassing #rookiecops #4thamendment #5thamendment #walkofshame #1aAudits #copwatch #CopsGetOwned #CopsGettingOwned #lawenforcement
Информация по комментариям в разработке