I understand that the kid *may* have violated local laws and was disturbing the peace through the choice of his words, but I think the cops could have at least attempted to explain to him that situation and asked him to remove his sign before detaining him. Whether or not they did in fact do this or whether the kid refused to comply after such an explanation is not clearly defined in the video.

However, the thing that got me about this video is not so much the minor was detained as it was the police trying to tell the person with the video camera that it was illegal for him to record what was occurring. I've heard of other incidents recently in which people were arrested for recording police actions. (One such event was in Philadelphia I believe where another minor recorded police on his camera phone, and another occurred when a man recorded police and detectives through his home security system.) However, I thought it was also completely legal to record people in public locations.

It seems a mixed/hypocritical message is being sent here. It's ok to take someone's picture or record video of them in a public location so long as they aren't the police, yet it's perfectly fine for the police to tape any civilian for whatever reason (or lack thereof) maybe.

(I apologize about ranting like this, it just *seems* like things are getting a bit out of hand if you don't agree with the majority and fall in line. Now, mind you, this is coming from a rather apathetic and politically unmotivated 26 year old.

The revolution will be televised... on our computers.

Looks like these kind of things happend everyday, USA is a very strange "democracy".

Nice to see the funding from the Dept. of Homeland Security got to those cops.

It's very simple: cops are not paid to think, nor are they on the streets to "debate" anything. Even if you're 100% in the right, on the streets, cops represent the law and DO have the power to arrest you for any number of reasons. The charges may end up being totally bogus, but there is such a thing as a "nuisance arrest" which cops use to maintain order.

This video is an attempt to document supposed misbehavior on the part of the cops. I suspect the cops *were* in the wrong for doing what they thought was their duty, but the protestors are the real losers, as they "lost their cool" and ended up portraying themselves as mannerless and disrespectful towards the police. That is ALWAYS a bad idea, and many otherwise neutral viewers will be turned off by the vulgarity.

People should be allowed to have profane protest signs, however what good will they do? Not a damned thing, except for letting Junior think he's raging against the machine.

What, in fact, is the law? I'm not proud that I do not know -- does anybody here?

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

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.

its WE THE PEOPLE --NOT-- we the CORPORATION--OR--we the POLICE!

also it is NOT illegal to video tape ANYTHING in public (just don't block traffic)
....you have the illusion of choice: Democrat or Republican....

we better hurry up and give up all our rights before the terrorist attack again.<sarcasim>

I'm actually amazed here.. the cops showed amazing restraint. You cannot follow them in a crowd like that and get that close. They could have arrested that lady for interfering.

Anyways, I love how the cops threw out twice two made up laws. You can't videotape with audio in FL. (Yeah you probably can't audiotape a phonecall.. but they have small brains) There are local decency laws.. So maybe displaying signed with vulger words might violate those local laws. Just like I probably cannot put drawings of a penis in my front yard.

Usually, they would have just warned the dude and said get rid of that sign. Just like if your party is being too loud. I think the mom and the videocamera pissed them off.

I'm pretty sure the deputy was right. While you generally have a right to record events that happen publicly, you don't have a right to stick your camera in cop's faces, interfere with police work, and record private conversations. Think about it, how often do you see audio/video of cops questioning someone that wasn't either an embedded reporter or a video supplied by the police? Consider if you or your kid were talking to police, whether you want Geraldo to record everything said and broadcast it on FOX. And you know he would if he could.

You really gotta wonder what kind of mom stands on the street corner while her son holds a sign that says "Fuck Bush". I don't think the next Ghandi or MLK is going to be springing from her loins anytime soon. People like this give protesters bad names, and end up doing more harm than good.

It doesn't appear to me that anyone was actually arrested. There's lots of scary, appalling stuff happening in the country right now, but this doesn't qualify.

Public display of the F word is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled so in Cohen vs. California in 1971. Cohen was arrested for disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket that said "Fuck the draft".

Laws for video recording police vary from state to state. But it's kind of scary if it's illegal to video record police making an arrest if you are not interfering and at a safe distance. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who is guarding the guards?)

Wepwawet, you are scarily wrong. You always have the right to record a public official. (Except if you posed a threat, block traffic, do not follow orders, or interfere)
-----------
"When a public employer is involved, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its state equivalents are implicated. (A few states apply their Fourth Amendment equivalent to private parties as well. These states include Massachusetts, California and Florida. All employers in those states must comply with the constitutional tests, in addition to the statutory and common law tests.) The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by state action. Actions by a public entity employer may qualify as "state actions."

Generally, there are two components to a Fourth Amendment analysis, under the public employer test: (I) is there a subjective (actual) expectation of privacy and (ii) is this expectation of privacy reasonable. If the surveillance is of an area open to public view, surveillance is generally permissible, since there can be no expectation of privacy in an area open to public view. The issue of whether other less obvious examples invoke a reasonable expectation of privacy is less settled.
---------
More examples of police getting in a huff about videotapes. But I think in the case of a police officer, the public interest outweighs the wiretap laws. (as it pertains to audio) Not sure what the FL law is. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060805/NEWS01/108050086

NH law: "It is a crime under state law (RSA 570-A:2) to use any sort of electronic device to eavesdrop or record conversations without the consent of everyone involved. It’s a felony to record other people’s conversations, and a misdemeanor to record one’s own conversations without the other person’s consent."

There is also the ruling of a man videotaping Truck inspections, that was arrested multiple times by police. PA courts upheld his right to videotape. http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0847P.pdf
----
The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny. Indeed, "the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers." City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987).
Videotaping is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination and can often provide cogent evidence, as it did in this case. In sum, there can be no doubt that the free speech clause of the Constitution protected Robinson as he videotaped the defendants on October 23, 2002. See Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Stanley, 394 U.S. at 564 (1969); Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Township of West Whiteland, 193 F.3d 177, 180 (3d Cir. 1999).

Gervaise: "I dunno, Coast Guard?"

seeknowsage: congrats on getting a top 15 vid as your first published one and welcome to videosift.com!

joedirt: I either expressed myself poorly, or I'm not understanding what you said, because we're really not that far apart. You generally have a right to tape police officers in public places, but AFAIK, in Florida you don't have a *RIGHT* to make audio recordings ("intercept oral communications") of police officers taking statements or having private conversations if they refuse consent. Further, information in police reports is not necessarily public, and there are laws regarding its disclosure. In other words: Arguably you have a right to tape from 20 feet away, arguably you DON'T have a *RIGHT* to tape from 1 foot away. If you have caselaw that indicates otherwise, I'll be happy to take a look.

Both the links you gave deal with entirely different situations, and the authorites in those situations behaved reprehensibly.

As far as "fuck" being a constitutionally protected word, Florida has a wonderfully overbroad nuisance statute, and some interesting statutes regarding what constitutes lawful assembly and lawful political protest. When dovetailed together with the even stricter local laws (Pinellas County?), it gets to be a pretty confusing mess. No doubt a lot of the laws would be deemed unconstitutional, but cops have to enforce the law they're given at the time and not interpret it. If the state or local legislature passes a law saying you can't hold a sign saying "Fuck" in public, it's not fair to say the cops are abusing their power when they enforce it.

Krupo: Wow, you're right. I hadn't noticed that it made the top 15. Thanks for the welcome! (=

Gervaise: "I dunno, Coast Guard?" I actually laughed out loud at that one, hehe

Some really interesting points (by quantumushroom, joedirt, wepwawet, gervaise, etc.) in regards to the subject of this video are being brought up. I agree that some police matters are definitely confidential and should not be subject to the general public's knowledge. I am referring specifically to Wepwawet's point of taking statements, etc. I certainly don't believe it is right for the public to actively and deliberately interfere with a criminal investigation.

Moreover, I feel that the mother in the video should definitely not have been aggressively and closely following the officers as she was. However, again, I feel the police officers may have overstepped their power in telling the person videotaping the incident that he was illegally doing so. It did not appear that he was interferring with their ability to enforce the law.

Nevertheless, without knowing the specifics of the local laws regarding this incident, and without knowing the complete story (given this may be considered a fragment of the overall recording), it's somewhat hard to come to a definitive conclusion. With the evidence provided, however, it *seems* the officers just didn't want to be videotaped, which I feel is a request that may be declined. This of course is again provided it isn't intentionally interferring with their enforcement of the law but is merely providing a recording of the incident, for better or for worse.

wepa: Sorry, I guess I read it wrong, I thought you were saying that if videotaping was legal, we'd see Geraldo do it all the time. So, I see your point about investigations and taking statements. But it is bizarre that audio is so protected.

If a news crew is shooting a segment, and I walk in the background and shout something, are they in trouble cause I didn't give consent?

Cops lie, they are allowed to by law. They can tell you anything they want to (mostly in the line of getting confessions), it's your obligation to know your rights. The live on intimidation, so if they say shut off that camera, or you can't be here.. they expect people to listen.

The bigger picture that's being missed here is the concept of civil disobedience, or more precisely effective civil disobedience. Guy wrote 'fuck the president' on a sign. Cop had a problem with it--disrupted the peace or something. Kid needs to say, "I disagree with your interpretation of the law, but my need to say what I need to say is infinitely more important than any discomfort that I may cause an apathetic soul, and far outweighs any consequences that you may inflict upon me. I would prefer not to be arrested, but do what thou will." And the next day, five of his buddies need to be holding up the exact same sign, and say the exact same thing when THEY get arrested. And the next day it should be ten, 20, 40, until finally someone says, "We can't win this. They're peaceable but passionate. Next time Mrs. MacGillicuddy calls to complain about the language, read her the First Amendment, and hang up." But (and this is critical) always get everything on tape.

But anyone who is unwilling to put up with discomfort in pursuit of their beliefs probably doesn't hold those beliefs too dearly.

The people there, not the cops escalated it, and the cops took him away. Hell, the people recording even said they were going to send it to the internet that night. I am kind of surprised the mom did not get taken in, as well. I know that you CAN be taken in for shooting your mouth off at a cop like that. I find it telling that the video ends there, and doesn't document what happened after the kid was taken to jail. The charges were probably dropped, and he went home with a warning.

just another example of freedom on the march
(anybody seen my swastika its gotta be around here somewhere?)
(heavy sarcasm) :-(

I hate it when people become completely retarded to try to prove a point that was insane to begin with.

The Constitution does garantee freedom of speech, however, there are limits to that speech.

Billboards for adult entertainment do not show nudity... why?
You won't hear someone say "Fu*k Bush!" on national TV... why?
"The Who" is not going to start a concert in your neighbors yard... why?
You are not going to stay on a plane very long after yelling "I love terrorists!"... why?

The kid was on the side of a road, not private property. He had a sign using profanity. He argued with the police.

Bottom line, police were right, kid and moron followers were wrong.

The shortest Amendment to the Constitution states "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Try standing on the side of the road waving a gun around. Same principle.

Instead of doing something constructive they do this. I can understand the kids being naive, but not the adults. Non education at it's finest....

hotlava, many people see value in a civil rights education.

KaiEr,
"You won't hear someone say "Fu*k Bush!" on national TV... why?" -- lol, are you kidding?! you do if you watch more than just Fox News.

"Billboards for adult entertainment do not show nudity... why?" -- Because you can charge money to see it. Um, decency laws are not speech.

"You are not going to stay on a plane very long after yelling "I love terrorists!"... why?" -- um.. really.

Since you seem to know part of the Constitution, why'd you skip out the relevant part:
"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."

So, specificly, that last part means, you can stand on public property and hold up just about any sign you want.

I know you aren't seriously trying to engage in intelligent debate, cause nothing you said makes sense. The freedom of speech applies to not being arrested for something you say. The "yell fire" counter-example to this is just dumb. As long as your speech is not threatening anyone, or cause for public concern, it should be free. Where does you brownshirt mentality end? "F*ck Bush" is that ok if the u is missing? How about "Bush sucks"? Who defines profane? Is it just what you can't say on TV regulates speech?

And your gun thing, well, this would be the same as being arrested for having a gun in your house. Or not being allowed to carry one (where conceal laws apply). 'Bear arms' does not mean waive them around or induce panic. But it does me you should be able to own them without hassle.
I'm very shocked an intelligent person like you can come to this conclusion. Maybe you don't really believe what you wrote, or maybe you are parroting something you read on freepress... but it's kind of sad. (And while I'm at it, why do you not post videos or vote for them? It's in the name of the website, not CoolForums. It further leads me to the sockpuppet conclusion)

I believe the Supreme Court has determined that localities may define what is considered profane versus what is not. And since, in the Constitution, the Supreme Court is tasked with interpretation of the Constitution, it would seem perfectly plausible for the community these folks were arrested in to be able to define certain curse words as profane.

Moreover, locales can create other ordinances that stipulate "free speech" by your broad picture, joedirt. For example, a suburb near me bans people in public holding advertising signs (which means no sign flippers for condo conversions, new housing communities, and the like). Is this a violation of freedom of speech since it limits the medium through which such speech can be made? What if the town this video was filmed in had such an ordinance, that you can't stand outside on a corner and hold a sign? Would that be violating that minor's unalienable rights?

The people posting this video were wanting an altercation. If their sign just said, "Bush Sucks," none of this melodrama would have unfolded.

Ok, more specific. Political speech is protected. Period.
"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

Why does everyone start throwing the "yell fire" or billboards as free speech arguments. It's not relevant. Yes decency laws can apply, but who interprets your protest sign? Is saying Bush sucks an insult and improper assail on the President's character. What if you meant a different Bush? So does the town have to register which words are 'bad' words, or does every cop interpret it on the fly. How about Bush is a Felcher? That's more obscene but most people wouldn't know it. How about "Bush has sex with dogs" there, no bad words, but would you want a child reading that?

How is F*ck Bush different than "Bush Sucks" or "Fap Bush" or "Fark Bush"?

I'll skip over the drivel and get right to the point, using your arguments.

Decency laws do not only pertain to images. Who decides what is decent? Well, the same people who decide that those billboards are indecent.

The simple fact comes down to WHERE HE WAS.

He was on public property, on the side of the road, showing the sign to people not directly related to his "...redress of grievances". Had he been doing it in front of the White House, I might have agreed with you, because people at the White House should have an understanding that this IS the place to show one's "redress of grievances". But, they don't rightly expect it on their way to taking their kids to school, and having it visibly forced on them.

I cannot have story time at the local public childrens library on "Miss Molly and her Wonder Cunt", because of the location.

Are you you really that limited in your understanding of what was going on?

The issue was NOT his problem with bush, it was NOT with him having a sign, it was his use of "vulgarity" in a public place in which there was no reason or need.

There IS a difference between "Fuck Bush" and "Bush Sucks", just as there is a difference between "Bush Sucks", and "Bush Sucks C*ck"

I AM trying to have an intellectual conversation... It just gets hard when you keep popping in like this.

Sorry, forgot to censor myself.

I'll skip over the drivel and get right to the point, using your arguments.

Decency laws do not only pertain to images. Who decides what is decent? Well, the same people who decide that those billboards are indecent.

The simple fact comes down to WHERE HE WAS.

He was on public property, on the side of the road, showing the sign to people not directly related to his "...redress of grievances". Had he been doing it in front of the White House, I might have agreed with you, because people at the White House should have an understanding that this IS the place to show one's "redress of grievances". But, they don't rightly expect it on their way to taking their kids to school, and having it visibly forced on them.

I cannot have story time at the local public childrens library on "Miss Molly and her Wonder C*nt", because of the location.

Are you you really that limited in your understanding of what was going on?

The issue was NOT his problem with bush, it was NOT with him having a sign, it was his use of "vulgarity" in a public place in which there was no reason or need.

There IS a difference between "F*ck Bush" and "Bush Sucks", just as there is a difference between "Bush Sucks", and "Bush Sucks C*ck"

I AM trying to have an intellectual conversation... It just gets hard when you keep popping in like this.

You wanted to click "Edit" instead of creating a new post, KaiEr.

Although even with the asterisks in place, don't be surprised if people still figure out what the bad words are.

Well, it might not be in good taste, but it's a small price to pay (people trying to prove a stupid point in an inappropriate place and time) for our 1st amendement rights.

The supreme court DID rule on people observing and recording police officers, in a California case back in the 60s:
Any citizen may observe a police officer in the performance of his duty as long as he stands a resonable distance away. This ruling establishes this distance as 8 to 10 feet.

I'm currently trying to track down the details of this info.

I also thought it was cute how they tried to bullshit them into turning off the camera...especially the audio part.

more from "Robinson vs Penn State Troopers" US District court no.04-3592:

"The police, under the cover of an invalid law, do not
have unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or
conduct that annoy or offend them."

*length=1:49

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:49 - length declared by bareboards2.