Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Facing Prison for Filming US Police
When police arrested Anthony Graber for speeding on his motorbike, the 25-year-old probably did not see himself as an advocate for police accountability in the age of new media.
But Graber, a sergeant with the Maryland Air National Guard, is now facing 16 years in prison, not for dangerous driving, but for a Youtube video he posted after receiving a speeding ticket.
The video, filmed with a camera mounted on Graber's motorcycle helmet designed to record biking stunts rather than police abuse, shows a plain clothes officer jumping out of an unmarked car and pointing a pistol at the motorcyclist.
It does not portray the policeman in a positive light.
After he posted the video on Youtube, police raided Graber's home, seized computers and put him in jail.
"The case is critical to the protection of democracy because I don't think you can have a free country in which public officials are able to criminally prosecute people who film what they are doing," David Rocah, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union in Maryland who is representing Graber, said.
Wiretapping
Even though he had never been arrested before, Graber is being charged with illegal wiretapping and could face 16 years in jail.
"This is about shielding the policeman, a public servant, from journalistic scrutiny," Steve Rendall, a media analyst with Freedom and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), told Al Jazeera.
The arrest happened in April and the trial is expected to begin later this year.
Rocah said his client "was charged under the wiretapping statute which prohibits taping oral communications without consent".
The statute, which does not mention video recording, is not supposed to apply to "conversations in a colloquial context, but in a private context" Rocah told Al Jazeera.
The encounter happened on a public street and, according to Rocah, police officers - public officials tasked with protecting the public interest - should not be able to hide behind such rules to avoid scrutiny.
"The value of documenting what is happening cannot be over-stated," he said.
Threat to privacy?
Supporters of the crack-down on filming police argue that citizen journalists pose a threat to privacy.
That is the logic Joseph Cassily, the prosecutor handling Graber's case, is likely to make at the trial.
In media interviews, Cassily presented a scenario where police stopped someone on suspicion of drinking and driving, asking for a breath test, and a random passerby filmed the encounter, putting it on the internet without consent from the driver or the officer.
"Is there some interest in protecting private individuals who may be having a conversation with the police? Yes," Rendall said.
"But in the end, I think that is out-weighed by the public's right to know."
"[Furthermore] you can't walk through Washington Square [a public space in New York] without being in the view of dozens of video cameras run by the police."
Recording ban
The wiretapping statute which bans "secret" recording of private conversations is legislated by the state of Maryland, not the US federal government.
Other US states, including Florida, Illinois and Massachusetts, have used similar laws against citizen journalists.
In 2007, police in Florida arrested Carlos Miller, after the journalist photographed the arrest of a woman.
"They [police] told me to leave the area, saying it was a 'private matter' and I said 'this is a public road'. They escorted me across the street and told me to keep moving. I had the right to be there and kept taking photos. They arrested me," Miller said.
He was charged with a series of misdemeanors and like many Americans arrested for filming police, Miller was eventually acquitted in court.
The arrest prompted the reporter to start the blog Photography is Not a Crimewhere he has documented more than eight similar incidents.
But the idea of winning court battles against journalists may not be the reason security forces prosecute journalists with wiretapping laws and other methods.
Intimidating journalists
"The whole reason for these laws is to intimidate people from filming," Rendall said.
And attempts to intimidate journalists into putting down their cameras reach far beyond the US.
In February the UK's Guardian newspaper ran the headline "Photographer films his own 'anti-terror' arrest"for a story and video about a man who was held by police for eight hours after taking pictures of Christmas celebrations in the small town of Accrington.
Rocah points to the example of the post-election protests in Iran. "The regime completely shut down the traditional media," he said.
"It was citizens' video posted on the web that allowed the world to see what was happening."
Barack Obama, the US president, went so far as to ask Twitter to hold-off on a maintenance operation because the social networking site was playing an important role in the protests.
Police assault
The most prominent US example of a citizen journalist filming police was arguably the case of Rodney King, a black man in Los Angeles who was assaulted by several police officers. His beating was filmed by a citizen standing at a nearby gas station.
Without video evidence, King, a convicted felon, may have stood little chance testifying against police officers in court.
But the video of King's beating flashed across news screens and helped spark the 1992 Los Angeles riots, which left more than 50 people dead and caused about $1bn in property damage.
The dynamics of video-tapping have fundamentally changed since then.
"I think that technology is making the issue [of arrests] arise with increasing frequency because the ability to record is more widely distributed than it ever has been," Rocah said.
The civil liberties lawyer, who believes the wiretapping law is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down, says he is confident his client will be found not guilty.
Broader trends
But even if he is, this case is indicative of broader trends in media, and consequently, the exercise of power.
As technology outpaces the abilities of states to control the flow of information, governments in the US and beyond are cracking down on independent journalists.
"In the past, freedom of the press only really belonged to those who owned newspapers, TV stations or other major outlets," Miller said.
Now information is more diffuse; history easier to record and technology easier to afford.
Direct evidence, including video of police abuses, is the easiest way to hold the powerful to account. And that may be exactly why security forces do not want to be caught on tape.
106 Comments so far
Show AllYou are making an important connection here. The breaking of international law at the highest levels of government creates a contempt towards law and a climate of authoritarianism and state sanctioned violence that then ripples down through all levels of society and impacts all of us.
To any police reading this, deosn't it make sense that your job will be easier if you have respect for people, even guilty people, instead of instigating these battles and giving us reasons to disrespect you and the law?
Police are not philosophers. They get paid to follow orders any orders.
Haven't I heard that defense before?
oh yeah, Neuremburg!
Haven't I heard that defense before?
oh yeah, Neuremburg!
So let me get this straight, the guy hops out of the car with a gun which is not uncommon is the US and all he says is "State Police" no ID, no badge, no nothing. And the people obey this system.
My God no wonder I don't go south of the border into the US anymore.
Anybody can play cop now.
The country gets crazier every day.
gnken
Was the Officer with a Gun employed by the Maryland State Police?
No kidding! We live in a concentration camp under police state watchdogs. Portland, Or. had a rogue cop, later involved in numerous instances of excessive force to the point of death, beat up a citizen for filming an arrest of a transient. And on it goes. The only thing to do is to disarm the street cops and change the rules under which they operate. P.S. Let us into your country now!!!
Right. Thank God that kind of thing doesn't happen in Canada. In Canada, they don't yell "State police!" Here they yell "Provincial police!" (or "RCMP!" if they're not in Ontario or Quebec)
Joking aside: the culture of policing is identical all across North America. Presumably the agenda is set by pan-North American organizations like the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The police were not always like this. I have seen the change within my lifetime. The police have become much more intimidating. In my childhood, police were jowly avuncular middle-aged men in dignified-looking uniforms, often with brass or silver buttons. Now they're scowling young people in paramilitary fatigues and dark glasses and - except for the women - with shaved heads and goatees and bodies like Mark McGwire's (Admittedly they are much more racially and genderly diverse today than they were back then, which is a good thing: credit where it is due). I am White, 49 years old, a house-owner and a salaried professional. And I'm afraid of the police. It's not that I really think the police actually want to hurt me, and it does not mean that I would not seek the police's help if I were a victim of crime; it's just that the police's campaign to create a more intimidating image over the past 20 years or so has been successful. I wouldn't dare argue with a police officer. Part of the difference may be the difference between a child's perception of the world and an adult's. But I know for a fact that my father was not afraid of the police when he was the age I am now. Once in the 1960s my father interrupted a policeman who had stopped him for speeding and was lecturing him about the danger of speeding by saying, "just give me the ticket!" Imagine talking to a police officer like that today! A few years ago I was in Beirut, Lebanon, riding in a car driven by a Lebanese friend. My friend nearly collided with a policeman on a motorcycle. The policeman stopped him and angrily demanded to see his driver's licence. He gave it to him, and then, much to my astonishment and horror, he argued with the policeman, claiming that he was in the right. Can you imagine anyone doing that here? (after a few seconds of arguing, the policeman left without giving my friend a ticket)
I think much of this can be attributed to the War on Drugs. The insane imperative to hunt down drugs, drug-users and drug-dealers puts the police in conflict with drug-dealing gangs, many of whose members are armed because they can't rely on the justice system to enforce contracts and resolve disputes over distribution rights. This causes the police to see themselves as soldiers fighting a counterinsurgency against the gangs. Simply legalizing drugs would make our cities much less hostile and intimidating places. In this domain, as in so many others today, our neighbours in Mexico and further south are leading the way.
Mark Marshall
Toronto, Canada
Wouldn't they yell "Arret! Gendarme!" in Quebec?
I'm going to be in Toronto this weekend - my first time in Canada outside of a boy-scout outing many years ago. Living in Toronto's sister G-20 city of Pittsburgh, and reading the Star, I really don't see a much difference between the US and Canada - same right wing, anti-tax, anti-public service, anti-union ranters commenting on the news stories (or are they US trolls?).
Then again, my brother, who lives in the Parkdale Neighborhood, reported considerable resident animosity toward the cops, and support for the protestors - but just like the US, the media ignored such stuff and mostly demonized the protestors.
It should be an intereting trip. My wife who is a bit a an "alternate medicine" nut (a US phenomenon related to our abusive healthcare syatem?) has a big list of Chinese medicinial herbs she hopes to find in Chinatown. Any tips?
"same right wing, anti-tax, anti-public service, anti-union ranters commenting on the news stories (or are they US trolls?)"
Probably not US trolls. Internet talkbackers tend to be that type in Canada and the US, the UK, and Australia (the whole English-speaking world), as well as in Israel, and probably in many other countries as well. For that reason I have given up reading the talkbacks. Too depressing. I would commit suicide.
Recently in Salon I read one of the best retorts to that type of troll. It was something like this: "I'm sorry you have to pay taxes. It's part of being an adult. Learn to live with it." That really pinned down the whole troll phenomenon: these right-wing trolls are typically big babies who can't accept that in order to live in a world full of other people they have to learn to behave like adults.
Sorry, I can't advise about herbs in Chinatown. But the Greater Toronto Area has four Chinatowns, so she should be able to find what she wants.
Mark Marshall
Toronto, Canada
I agree that they probably not US trolls. The Toronto area certainly has its sprawling suburbs - which just about everywhere are potently effective in breeding those anti-public-sector, anti-tax attitudes.
Yes. In fact, I think that the main reason why they keep building those sprawl suburbs is to increase the number of people who will vote for the Republican ("Conservative" in Canada) Party. It's basically part of a right-wing political machine. When you live in a sprawl suburb, your main priority is ensuring that you have enough money to put gas in your car - without which you are as helpless as a turtle on a fence-post (did I say "car"? I meant van or SUV. Not many suburbanites have cars any more). You resent taxes because they take money out of your gas budget to pay for public transportation that you don't use and couldn't use even if you wanted to, because the physical layout of the communities where you live and work make it literally impossible. I don't blame the suburbanites for having that attitude. Most of them were born into such communities and can't imagine living any other way. Most of them literally can't conceive of a world in which it is possible to buy a litre of milk or a newspaper without getting into a motor vehicle and driving for at least fifteen minutes. Thank God my parents raised me in a city, or I too would probably be a tax-hating Conservative voter.
Mark Marshall
Toronto, Canada
Exactly!
As someone who grew up in US suburban sprawl and knew of nothing else, moving to the city where I no longer needed a car and discovered an aliveness to public spacers that was a very pleasant epiphany. I have been trying to explain exactly what you described here for a while.
The relationship between conservatism and the suburban infrastructure really struck me recently while trying to gather signatures to get some Greens Party candidates on the ballot (an arcane process Pennsylvania used to to discourage multi-party democracy). It was fairly easy in the city but practically impossible in the suburbs, where upon mentioning "green party" they would look at me like I was from mars.
As a civil engineer, I've become fascinated with the way the design of infrastructure and public space can influence, and maybe even create, a popular ideology. Certainly many aspects of suburban design represent "deliberate inefficiencies" to enhance energy and car sales. It is also excelles in concentrating retail and restaurant business activity into big boxes and chains - suburbia is death to a small family shop. But ultimately, suburbia is "hard" form of deliberate "social engineering"** being imposed by the business-right, which works hand-in-hand with the softer social engineering of the corporate media propaganda syatem. Yet, they then accuse the left of "social engineering". As a new-urbanist, I proclaim myself "guilty" of social engineering. The USA (and Canada) is only going to move leftward to the extent its middle-class moves back to the city.
Jane Jacobs wrote about this in 1961.
Great comments and tangents, all.
Peace, Jack
The suburbs of 1961 - like the Farfax, Virginia of my youngest days, pre-shopping mall, pre-big-box, were positively nice compared to the faceless car-clogged crap today.
But mostly Jane Jacobs was not talking about the the implications of suburban development that we were talking about - its ability to create an entirely different ideology and society. And we now know that its environmental impacts go way beyond the loss of farmland that Jacobs was tallking about.
But enough with this off-topic digression.
"enough with this off-topic digression"
But Sabo, it is not an off-topic digression. It is very much to the point. The hostile aggressive style of policing discussed in the article under discussion is a product of the long-standing national suburbanization project. People in the suburbs think of the cities as dangerous places full of alien and dangerous dark-skinned people. Virtually without exception, North American municipal police officers do not live in the cities they patrol. They live in the surrounding suburbs. Like other suburbanites, they see the cities as dangerous places full of violent dusky people, and so they act like an army of occupation. The only exceptions to that rule are the cities where it is a legal requirement for the police to live in the city where they work.
Mark Marshall
Toronto, Canada
Deliberate social engineering to create conservative supporters? This is laughable, unless you are pathetic enough to really believe it. The 'burbs were created by those who wanted to have some space around them, a yard of their own with room for kids to play, which generally wasn't affordable in the city. That was in the day of stay-at-home moms; now a lot of people are moving back to the cities not just for the amenities and jobs, but because it is a lot of hassle taking care of a house and yard.
But attributing the social phenomena of suburbia to some vile conspiracy is absurd.
Verno, I am in fact pathetic enough to really believe it! So it's not laughable.
I'm glad you're not. It must be nice not to be pathetic. Maybe someday I too can achieve your degree of non-patheticness.
With pathos,
Mark Marshall
Toronto, Canada
I often feel the same way you do about the talkback sections of blogs. I persist because I think the goal of the trolls is to shut down discussion by making the conversation too toxic for most people to handle. Let them chase you away and they've accomplished their mission.
your comment on drugs is commendable...
as with laws surrounding terrorism and security, drug laws place police in incredibly powerful positions...
powerful enough to enable graft, and gratuitous, sadistic violence...
supported by similar power and corruption throughout the legal and penal systems...
Peter McWilliams wrote a great book called Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do, describing the travesty that is Consensual Crime...
http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/
"I think much of this can be attributed to the War on Drugs."
more than you may realize - my take is that drugs were outlawed so no-knock and asset confiscation laws etc could be passed with full public support.
Agree -- plus the drug war has completely corrupted our government, courts,
police enforcement, Customs -- and other government agencies --
Our banks are laundry machines for drug money!
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Holland's laws are smart. They have less crime and less addicts.
Police, and border guards in the USA have become more like the gestapo.
I was in a border crossing in Detroit and a bus load of people were coming in for processing. One of the lovely, inviting USA border "Guards", stated in a very loud voice, for all in the building to hear, "There are 4 Ali's on board send them back."
While in California, planned traffic stops on two different highways with dogs of all shapes and forms, flashing badges,etc., when they saw we were white we were shoved on.
There is not only a war on drugs but a war on everything. War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorists, war on our own people. It seems the USA loves the word,...War.
Mark,
I am 67 years old. The Maryland State Police have been abusive as long as I remember. Years ago I was in the Upper Marlboro Courthouse looking for the drivers license office when I nervously asked a state trooper for directions. He picked up on my nervousness and verbally attacked me. By the way, I did not get the directions from him. Another time I was flagged down by a trooper who was standing outside his car. I stopped and he told me I was speeding. Evidently his radar went off. He told me to wait while he checked his radar reading. He returned and told me that I was not going fast enough to warrant a ticket. I asked him how fast I was going (out of curiuosity). He told me to get in my car and leave unless I wanted to get arrested. I have two more stories just like this but this is enough for here.
Well then, maybe what has happened is that the violent and abusive police culture of the South has spread to the north in the intervening decades.
Mark
Almost all police (there are exceptions) have been abusive as long as I can remember. Here in San Francisco, cops are often routinely arrogant, nasty, dismissive and threatening.I used to think when I was a kid that cops went after me and my friends because we were young and powerless, and they could get away with it, but it would seem that I was naive. Cops just like to get in your face, when a little civility on their part would accomplish the same thing without their having to loose face. Case in point: my wife got screamed at by a cop for proceeding too slowly through a road repair area where he was directing traffic. Was this neccessary? Of course not. Did it improve my wife's attitude towards cops? No, but it did confirm her already low opinion of their behavior.This kind of thing has been going on forever. It makes you despise the little minds behind the guns.Female cops, on the other hand, seem to handle themselves with a lot more civility, but I suppose there are some exceptions."Young cops, old cops feel alright/on a warm San Francisco night". I wish-they always seem to be having a bad day-or night.
If you are from Canada, which I gather from your comment, I have to say that the police up there are some of the biggest pigs anywhere. And once taken in, might as well forget about any rights.
"The most prominent US example of a citizen journalist filming police was arguably the case of Rodney King, a black man in Los Angeles who was assaulted by several police officers. His beating was filmed by a citizen standing at a nearby gas station."
It may be more accurate to say that the taping of the King beating was the inspiration for the crackdown on citizen journalism.
"But the video of King's beating flashed across news screens and helped spark the 1992 Los Angeles riots, which left more than 50 people dead and caused about $1bn in property damage."
Actually, it was the right-wing engineered acquittal of the officers involved that sparked the riots.
q
You made a vitally important correction. You may want to e-mail the author via Al Jazeera about it.
His version makes the rioting seem a fairly sensless think provoked only by images; The actual events shows the rioting to be a justifiable reaction to gross racist injustuce.
Rioting is never justifiable. Rioting is an excuse by sociopaths who want to watch the neighborhood burn and see themselves hauling a new stolen TV out of store on their new stolen TV. Rioting is an excuse for adding to the senseless violence and racism. Don't ever use the word rioting and justifiable in the same sentence again!
What was the racial injustice? If Rodney King had been a large, intoxicated white man ignoring the police shouting at him, what would have happened differently? Or would it have been the jury verdict that was different? If you think the latter then you don't know SE Ventura County.
"If Rodney King had been a large, intoxicated white man ignoring the police shouting at him, what would have happened differently?"
If he had been White, the police would not have been so violent, because they would have been less afraid of him. The police's treatment of Blacks reflects North American society's fear of Blacks.
But of course the riots were not about Rodney King. Rodney King was just the trigger. The riots were about systemic racism.
Mark Marshall
Toronto, Canada
What the hell was right-wing engineered about the acquittal? What a stupid comment!
The prosecution erred in allowing the trial in allowing the trial to be moved to Simi Valley - not because it is a hotbed of racism, as many grossly ignorant people who weren't familiar with Southern California claimed, but because it is a very conservative area where a significant number of LA area police officers make their home. The head prosecutor who made that call was black.
If you aren't familiar with the history, don't make yourself look bad by editorializing.
"not because it is a hotbed of racism, as many grossly ignorant people who weren't familiar with Southern California claimed, but because it is a very conservative area where a significant number of LA area police officers make their home. The head prosecutor who made that call was black."
A conservative area where many police live means is probably a racist area too. The prosecutor was Black. So what? Condaleezza Rice is Black too. So is President Obama.
Please be civil. Don't call people "grossly ignorant" or "stupid" just because you disagree with them. It is perfectly legitimate to emphatically disagree with people, but there is no excuse for being personally abusive.
I don't expect everybody to indicate their real names and places of residence in these talkback fora. I know that some of you will lose your jobs if you identify yourselves. But anonymity is no excuse for incivility.
Mark Marshall
Toronto, Canada
Not to split hairs, but the "grossly ignorant" comment wasn't referring to anything anyone had posted on this forum but rather to those (and they know who they are...) who made assumptions about the circumstances of the verdict and the area in which the trial took place, based on ?.
I'm not getting the video above but here it is on you tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5bMSyJCsg
The guy was driving like an idiot, arrest him for that not filming!
I think the cop had his gun ready, like he should approaching a stranger doing strange things.
He had to call in backup because he was in plan clothes, and a marked vehicle came in behind them.
I say if the state is filming us in secret, the private citizen should have that same right. If there is a violation of rights on either side the video can be used to show that.
As far as publishing the video, that's different. What is the purpose of the publication? If there is a controversy, publish it so the public can judge!
In the UK, the cops don't have guns at all. And I'm sure they have reckless MC riders there too.
"In the UK, the cops don't have guns at all"
Shhhh! We're not supposed to mention that here.
Your last point may be valid, but the article says that the motorcyclist was arrested for filming the cop (or more precisely, for recording cop's "conversation"), not for posting the video.
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Juvenal
Cops tape US all the time. Communities put up cameras on every street corner they fell they can get away with. Companies put up cameras every place they can, to cover every square inch of their locations. But when WE tape someone on a PUBLIC street, WE go to jail? What a bunch of CRAP.
I have NO respect for those in authority, at this point. I've dealt with enough of them to know what a bunch of power hungry scum they really are. That goes for the cop on the street, the DA in the courts, the judge sitting at the bench, and the probation scum that do nothing but steal your money FOR PROFIT. There isn't a single one of them that I would trust in my house for a heartbeat. I would count the silverware the minute they left.
To think that those who are "protecting the peace" are above any type of surveillance is just NOT an acceptable idea. They screw with us the second we leave our homes, and in my case, INSIDE my home. I have been lied to, stolen from and made a felon by people without a sense of honor, dignity, or even proportion.
And what did they ultimately GET for their actions? They got to spend $2,000 for a plea deal that gained them $1,620 in fines (they lost nearly $400 on my bust!), and turned a CITIZEN who WOULD have given them the benefit of the doubt at one time and made a CITIZEN who will NEVER trust a freaking PIG again as long as I live. I've seen just what a bunch of sadistic, selfish, childish assholes cops are. And like I've said many, many times, it's like lawyers, 99% give the rest a bad name.
Who is supposed to police the police? The cops stand together, the DAs back them up EVERY TIME, and at least in the greater Denver area, they shoot and kill people without losing a single cop job regardless of how many times it's been shown that it was THE COP'S mistakes that caused the death, usually on a MISTAKEN warrant. They can't be bothered to verify an address BEFORE they go and kill innocent people. But NOT ONE cop has lost his job over it in decades, here.
Who is supposed to protect us from the cops? We have NO ONE but ourselves. I hope Graber sues the hell out of them, and takes the police chief's HOME away from him. This is BULLSHIT. No one is filming cops in their homes, this is ON THE PUBLIC STREETS. They wouldn't hesitate for a second to tape US, turnabout is fair play, and that is the ONE thing they REFUSE us: FAIR PLAY.
Couldn't agree with you more. And it will just keep getting worse.
Welcome to the United States Police State.
Next up: the creation of a National Police Force or U.S. Police Force, its sole purpose to watch the citizens. Think it won't happen? WATCH.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
"Next up: the creation of a National Police Force or U.S. Police Force, its sole purpose to watch the citizens. Think it won't happen? WATCH."
Technically, the Amerikkkan government hasn't formed a national police force yet, but Blackwater (aka Xe Services) is close. Amy Goodman reported in "Democracy Now!" that Blackwater was patroling the streets in New Orleans after the federal government failed to do anything to help those who were devastated by that disaster.
"Next up: the creation of a National Police Force or U.S. Police Force, its sole purpose to watch the citizens. Think it won't happen? WATCH."
They are called the FBI.
They ran/run COINTELPRO, organize assassinations of organizers (Fred Hampton, et al), monitor political activity, infiltrate, disrupt, distribute disinformation, spy, break in, and harass.
This was always their original mandate.
Good post.
Question: you say that the cop on the street, the DA in the courts, the judge sitting at the bench, and the probation people are power hungry, out of control and not to be trusted. Sadly, I think your assessment is accurate. However, would you extend your indictment to the owners, bosses and landlords - as a class? I see the same power dynamics, the same abuses, the same injustices, and after all ultimately the legal system operates to protect property rather than people, in other words to protect those with the most property and to protect the rackets the owners at all levels of society are using to exploit those with less property and access to resources. We also cannot overlook the fact that the drive toward privatization of all things and the pressure toward police state authoritarianism are closely related. We are not only losing our freedom of action within the public arena, we are losing the public arena itself, and the two trends are mutually supporting.
Disclaimer: of course there are decent people working for the government, and there are good people who are owners, just as there were no doubt good people who were slave owners. These comments are about a systematic and institutionalized set of social arrangements that is exploitative and authoritarian an unjust, not about good and bad individuals.
"However, would you extend your indictment to the owners, bosses and landlords - as a class?"
You haven't read any of my previous posts, I do so on a daily basis. I have no respect for the "upper class", largely because I don't see them as having ANY class. Anyone who has to go around making life shit for others so they can feel they are better than them has NO class. All they have is money. Too bad that it never bought them a sense of compassion or fairness.
Money doesn't give anyone brains, or W would be one smart MF. Or Dan Quayle. Or Michelle Bachmann. It certainly doesn't give one humanity. In fact, the quickest way I know of to remove humanity from a person is to give them too much money. In my life as a musician I've been around a LOT of rich people. They are generally not worth the money they begrudgingly pay you for doing something they can't. Some are decent human beings, most are just selfish, greedy assholes.
However, this article is about cops and courts, so I limited my post to them. But yes, the rich are FAR more of a problem in this society than they are worth. In fact, it seems that this is the case with pretty much every society I've ever heard of.
"Supporters of the crack-down on filming police argue that citizen journalists pose a threat to privacy."
The pigs, er, I mean, the police and other members of the Amerikkkan fascisti would always prefer not to have the audio or video recording equipment on while they are torturing suspects. They would much rather torture people in private.
Steve Rendall of FAIR is making an outstanding point.
AD
We need the Right to Tape just as much as we need the Right to Bear Arms.... to protect ourselves from our own goverment.
I do understand the frustration of good and honest cops (yes, there are many) that- when they are video taped, the evidance can be twisted to a mistrial, and the cop gets the fault and the perpetrator gets off on a technicallity.
But that can't sway a fundemental right. What would make the situation better would be cheaper legal fees.