Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 09, 2017

In a free speech ruling that contradicts six other federal circuit courts, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a district court ruling that says Americans do not have a first amendment right to videotape the police, or any public official, in public.

The court of appeals filed the opinion July 25.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Matthew Akins of Columbia, who has had numerous run-ins with police as he attempted to videotape them pulling cars over and making arrests. Akins was typically standing on public property such as a street or sidewalk while videotaping the encounters.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Judge Nanette Laughrey ruled that Akins, and by extension, any citizen or the press, has no right to record the activities of public officials on public property. The Eighth Circuit affirmed this ruling.

Wyse has filed a motion for the Eighth Circuit Court to reconsider its ruling. If it refuses, Wyse said he will petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal the ruling this fall.

He said that right now, the seven states of the Eighth Circuit do not have the same first amendment rights that all other citizens enjoy.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Yow! That won't last.

#1 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 08:51 PM | Reply

Ha! Gorsuch lands on which side you think?

#2 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 09:09 PM | Reply

Ha! Gorsuch lands on which side you think?

#2 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 A

Is Grouch currently sitting on the 8th Circuit?

#3 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-09 09:15 PM | Reply

#2 I'm thinking it will be unanimous. The Supremes have already ruled that you have no right to privacy in a public space, so anybody can be filmed in public.

Also, this is most fascist/communist/Reptoid/Illuminati/NWO decision I've heard in a long time.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 09:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

It said in the article that seven other Circuit Courts of Appeal disagree, so it's 7-1 already.

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-09 09:19 PM | Reply

Jesus people. Excuse me for laying out a hypothetical.

Now, anyone with a clue? Because I'm one that's got not a one.

#6 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 09:23 PM | Reply

#4

AMEN! In the least religious was possible...

#7 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-08-09 09:24 PM | Reply

What an absolute BS opinion. The sum total of the analysis of the First Amendment issue:

Akins also argues that the district court erred by granting the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment filed by the defendants and by denying his own motion for partial summary judgment. After careful de novo review, see Letterman v. Does, 789 F.3d 856, 858–59, 861 (8th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment standard);Gomez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 676 F.3d 655, 660 (8th Cir. 2012) (motion to dismiss standard), we conclude that the district court did not err in its thorough and well reasoned opinions. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B
Most would expect a "careful de novo review" to consist of more than two sentences.

The silver lining, the worthless opinion sets up a circuit split. Prime reason for granting cert.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2017-08-09 11:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#3 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
"Is Grouch currently sitting on the 8th Circuit?"

Is that auto-correct, or is that what we're calling him now?

#9 | Posted by TheTom at 2017-08-10 02:10 AM | Reply

This just marks the problem we have with actual party partisanship selecting judges.

#10 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-08-10 06:17 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

' This just marks the problem we have with actual party partisanship selecting judges. '

Agreed, if this is meant to encompass both the choosing and approving (or not approving) of judges. The judicial system has been transformed from a (supposedly) independent third branch of government into a tool to be wielded by whatever political party is in power. As such, it has been bastardized from a "referee" into an extension of the executive branch (not unlike henchmen for the king in days long past) to provide "legitimacy" for its agenda.

#11 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2017-08-10 06:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I agree with everyone that it's a ridiculous ruling.

I do however hate these activist turds that take this ---- to a whole new level by taunting cops and politicians in order to provoke reaction. Like the open carry agitators.

#12 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-08-10 11:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Bull Crap. I have the right to film them if I want to. Where does the constitution give that power to the police?

#13 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-08-10 11:30 AM | Reply

Yep this is ridiculous! Guess it's civil disobedience for me til it's fixed... :( Hopeful I won't find out what they'd lock me up for.

#14 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2017-08-10 11:35 AM | Reply

Bears repeating and earns a NW:

Agreed, if this is meant to encompass both the choosing and approving (or not approving) of judges. The judicial system has been transformed from a (supposedly) independent third branch of government into a tool to be wielded by whatever political party is in power. As such, it has been bastardized from a "referee" into an extension of the executive branch (not unlike henchmen for the king in days long past) to provide "legitimacy" for its agenda.

#11 | POSTED BY TRUEBLUE AT 2017-08-10 06:32 AM

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 11:43 AM | Reply

Isn't this moot, are the Police still a band?

#16 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-08-11 12:27 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort