*promote for science!

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, July 25th, 2013 1:41pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

Nicely done by Adam.

He was trolling them but I like it.

I like how a cop will throw out section whatever to try to intimidate but the guy knew his rights.

Up North we don't have the same kind of constitution but I really lack in knowing all my own rights...gotta get on that.

Well done Adam, well done.

If you're talking Canada, there are some weird lil' nuances that can land you in the pokey. You can be arrested for up to 24hrs without a charge. Once hour 24 passes, then they have to charge you or let you go, that one I know for a fact.

holy shit someone more useless than me??? wtf ... planet is in trouble.

i at least, will self terminate should it become more clear that we are the only problem here. kinda hoping to see humans get a foot on interstellar travel though so i know the story doesnt end like it seems its going to -- with all our deaths and the end of our species

Freedom of speech is not freedom to break the law. Clearly he is placing the video on youtube for commercial use. If freedom of speech granted you blanket permission to do what you like, a person could commit murder and define it as free speech.

And what if the law says that you may not talk about certain subjects, that you may not say anything within 10 feet of a political figure, or that you may not investigate state malfeasance? In these hypotheticals, which takes priority, the law or your human rights?

Remember, the constitution does not grant you these rights, they are inherent in you. The constitution forbids the government from passing any law which abridges your rights, but it certainly doesn't stop them from trying (and sometimes succeeding). This means there are necessarily cases where you must use speech to break the law when it is specifically designed to stop you from exercising your rights.

First the constitution does grant these rights. No right is "inherent" or else we would not be having this conversation. Second, when a law is put into place that someone feels violates their constitutional rights the correct way to challenge that law is in court, where the law may be struck down as unconstitutional. Lastly when the rights of an individual may impose on the rights of another individual, whose rights win out? In this case it can be argued (and I'm sure has been) that commercial filming impedes on the individuals right to privacy for commercial gain, which is why their is a specific law against it. Adam can argue that we cant prove that he is filming for commercial purposes but if they have cause to suspect that he is they have every right to arrest him. the fact that his film did end on youtube for commercial purposes means they were absolutely right.

1. Read the First Amendment and tell me where it is granting you any right:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The operative phrase is a restriction on the power of Congress, not the endowment of a right upon individuals.

Also, the Declaration of Independence backs me up:

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

As does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

These rights are yours simply because you are human, and they are inalienable - you can't give them away even if you want to.

2. You can not bring a lawsuit in US court for a violation of rights based upon legislation unless you have standing. In effect, you must demonstrate that a law has actually caused you harm in some illegitimate, unfair, or unconstitutional manner. One of the easiest ways to gain standing is to violate the law and suffer the consequences of what you perceive to be an unjust law.

3. The Supreme Court has only recognized a right to privacy from government intrusion not from individual or corporate intrusion. Furthermore, there is no assumption to a right to privacy in a public place. The most logical reason for the need to get a permit to film there is that the Park Service recognizes the economic value of licensing something that is in high demand (filming in front of the White House) and could care less about the privacy of individuals (citizens and non-citizens alike).

Any idiot can become a cop. All they need to do is write tickets and do as they are told.