Eighth Circuit: Citizens do not have a right to film public officials in public

[abigfatzero 3,746]

Eighth Circuit: Citizens do not have a right to film public officials in public

JEFFERSON CITY — 

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.

snip

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.

http://krcgtv.com/news/local/eighth-circuit-citizens-do-not-have-a-right-to-film-public-officials-in-public

 

Judge Nanette Laughrey

Senior Judge Nanette K. Laughrey

Judge, U. S. District Court, Western District of Missouri
Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 20, 1995, to a seat vacated by Joseph E. Stevens, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on July 24, 1996, and received commission on August 1, 1996

Judge, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 20, 1995, to a seat vacated by Joseph E. Stevens, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on July 24, 1996, and received commission on August 1, 1996

http://www.mow.uscourts.gov/judges/laughrey

 

Another "liberal" libturd judge ruling in favor of tyranny, who would have thunk it......

[Cinnamon 29,026]

1 hour ago, abigfatzero said:

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.

So we pay their salaries, pay for the buildings they park their fat asses in and own the land where the buildings are located, plus pay phones utilties and perks for them... then they'd better be REDEFINING THE MEANING OF PUBLIC PROPERTY. 

I've had about enough of all this shit. I think it's time for me to get organized and hit the f**king streets. 

[spooky2 89]

Too many cops getting caught in lies.

[BeachedOnMars 772]

59 minutes ago, spooky2 said:

Too many cops getting caught in lies.

Yep. The legal system has to game it now with these outlandish "rulings" because the  cops are becoming so corrupt. They are all on the same team.

[RabidWolf 1,177]

10 hours ago, abigfatzero said:

Eighth Circuit: Citizens do not have a right to film public officials in public

JEFFERSON CITY — 

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.

snip

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.

http://krcgtv.com/news/local/eighth-circuit-citizens-do-not-have-a-right-to-film-public-officials-in-public

 

Judge Nanette Laughrey

Senior Judge Nanette K. Laughrey

Judge, U. S. District Court, Western District of Missouri
Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 20, 1995, to a seat vacated by Joseph E. Stevens, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on July 24, 1996, and received commission on August 1, 1996

Judge, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 20, 1995, to a seat vacated by Joseph E. Stevens, Jr.; Confirmed by the Senate on July 24, 1996, and received commission on August 1, 1996

http://www.mow.uscourts.gov/judges/laughrey

 

Another "liberal" libturd judge ruling in favor of tyranny, who would have thunk it......

From the top of page 5 here: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/07/163555P.pdf
"(1) the husband of the judge assigned to his case is the chair of a mayoral task force for defendant city of Columbia"

Yeah, no bias there... ffs

[apache54 6,086]

8 hours ago, spooky2 said:

Too many cops getting caught in lies.

and murders they committed!!

[apache54 6,086]

sounds like a recall needed for this judge!!

[Cinnamon 29,026]

It's not just police they're talking about, it's any of the scumbag pols, too or their minions.

Americans do not have a first amendment right to videotape the police, or any public official, in public.

[Cinders77 417]

They're called public SERVANTS, not officials.   They are not holier-than-thou and need to be subservient to the public who pay their inflated salaries and benefits.  If we want to photograph them while they are performing their duties, tough noogies!  They voluntarily signed up for public SERVICE so they have no privacy with the public. 

[Cinnamon 29,026]

23 minutes ago, Cinders77 said:

They're called public SERVANTS, not officials.   They are not holier-than-thou and need to be subservient to the public who pay their inflated salaries and benefits.  If we want to photograph them while they are performing their duties, tough noogies!  They voluntarily signed up for public SERVICE so they have no privacy with the public. 

Officials and Lawmakers... strike those words out of vocabulary, it makes them seem all powerful. We spell words and words are spells. 

[nppalawyer 0]

The 8th Circuit ruled on the case but not on the right to record police in public. On 8/2/16 the lower federal court only found that the plaintiff "has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceedings he wishes to." She also cited a 2004 8th Circuit case holding that “Neither the public nor the media has a First Amendment right to videotape, photograph, or make audio recordings of government proceedings that are by law open to the public." This is far different from the right to record outside in a traditionally public forum (street or park) and only applies to the jurisdiction of the federal trial court not the full 8th Circuit. Akins is now seeking an en banc review or motion for rehearing of the 7/25/27 8th Circuit ruling which basically dealt with affirming the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants and also affirming the denial by the trial court judge of the motion for her to recuse herself from the case. The First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have all ruled that the right to record police officers performing their official duties in a public palace is clearly established which will negate a claim of qualified immunity by police.

[abigfatzero 3,746]

11 hours ago, nppalawyer said:

The 8th Circuit ruled on the case but not on the right to record police in public. On 8/2/16 the lower federal court only found that the plaintiff "has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceedings he wishes to." She also cited a 2004 8th Circuit case holding that “Neither the public nor the media has a First Amendment right to videotape, photograph, or make audio recordings of government proceedings that are by law open to the public." This is far different from the right to record outside in a traditionally public forum (street or park) and only applies to the jurisdiction of the federal trial court not the full 8th Circuit. Akins is now seeking an en banc review or motion for rehearing of the 7/25/27 8th Circuit ruling which basically dealt with affirming the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants and also affirming the denial by the trial court judge of the motion for her to recuse herself from the case. The First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have all ruled that the right to record police officers performing their official duties in a public palace is clearly established which will negate a claim of qualified immunity by police.

So, basically they are giving themselves in the federal court system the right to decide if we the people can video tape them while they are committing treason, as in the Bundy case.

If there were cameras in that court room, things would be a whole lot different.......

How is the public at large suppose to know what is really going on in a courtroom, that holds maybe 100 people, if the media is not allowed to show us with video.

Guess, We are suppose to be told what to think by a "reporter" in print.