Funny stuff
...
An observation....
Gun guys on youtube videos grow beards and/or wear baseball caps

Funny stuff
...
An observation....
Gun guys on youtube videos grow beards and/or wear baseball caps

Many gun guys are former military.  I know when I left the Air Force, it wasn't long before I had a very full beard. 
 

Someone here was filming out buyback and was approached very quickly by HPD. Even though they were on a public sidewalk.

Someone here was filming out buyback and was approached very quickly by HPD. Even though they were on a public sidewalk.

To be honest, there is an "anonymity" aspect that should be respected.  The Cops should have told them not to record anyone's face, their license plate, or anything else that could be used to identify them.  Just like having to get permission from parents before using a minor's image, there should be some kind of safeguard if someone doesn't like being recorded turning in guns.

To be honest, there is an "anonymity" aspect that should be respected.  The Cops should have told them not to record anyone's face, their license plate, or anything else that could be used to identify them.  Just like having to get permission from parents before using a minor's image, there should be some kind of safeguard if someone doesn't like being recorded turning in guns.

Public places are public.

Public places are public.

And just because you can does not mean you should.

And just because you can does not mean you should.

But they did and HPD took the time to see what was going on.  Which is none of their business.

What should have happened was nothing. HPD sees a guy filming and goes about their business.

But they did and HPD took the time to see what was going on.  Which is none of their business.

What should have happened was nothing. HPD sees a guy filming and goes about their business.

In this specific case, there would be exceptions to the 1A right mentioned.  If the person taking pictures or video intended to harass or intimidate the police or buy-back participants, they could be told to leave.

Nothing wrong with HPD asking why they are recording.  Consensual encounter.  The person had no obligation to answer any questions.  Just like a Cop can ask for ID even when you aren't legally required to present one.  Asking isn't demanding or ordering.

In this specific case, there would be exceptions to the 1A right mentioned.  If the person taking pictures or video intended to harass or intimidate the police or buy-back participants, they could be told to leave.

Nothing wrong with HPD asking why they are recording.  Consensual encounter.  The person had no obligation to answer any questions.  Just like a Cop can ask for ID even when you aren't legally required to present one.  Asking isn't demanding or ordering.

Correct

They had an interesting court case on the mainland that is kind of related. It had to do with animal rights activists harassing hunters but following them onto public lands and doing normally legal things, like make noise, to make it difficult for hunters.

In this specific case, there would be exceptions to the 1A right mentioned.  If the person taking pictures or video intended to harass or intimidate the police or buy-back participants, they could be told to leave.

Nothing wrong with HPD asking why they are recording.  Consensual encounter.  The person had no obligation to answer any questions.  Just like a Cop can ask for ID even when you aren't legally required to present one.  Asking isn't demanding or ordering.

There was no harassment as i watched it happen. This was another case of hpd not knowing what the 1a is by wasting their time to interact with the person.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

There was no harassment as i watched it happen. This was another case of hpd not knowing what the 1a is by wasting their time to interact with the person.

Many cops are on a power trip.  Trying to convince them they are wrong on the law isn't always going to end well for you in the short term.

To be honest, there is an "anonymity" aspect that should be respected.  The Cops should have told them not to record anyone's face, their license plate, or anything else that could be used to identify them.  Just like having to get permission from parents before using a minor's image, there should be some kind of safeguard if someone doesn't like being recorded turning in guns.

And just because you can does not mean you should.

But, “because you can” means HPD can’t tell you to stop.

I’m a bit of an absolutist about this.  Don’t want to be recorded turning in guns at a “buyback” (totally disingenuous term)?  Don’t go to the buyback.

Don’t want people recording folks turning in guns at your “buyback”? Have it somewhere that you can legitimately restrict access, if you can figure out such a place.

And I’m not sure you have to get parent’s permission before using the image of a minor, if the minor was in public…

But, “because you can” means HPD can’t tell you to stop.

I’m a bit of an absolutist about this.  Don’t want to be recorded turning in guns at a “buyback” (totally disingenuous term)?  Don’t go to the buyback.

Don’t want people recording folks turning in guns at your “buyback”? Have it somewhere that you can legitimately restrict access, if you can figure out such a place.

And I’m not sure you have to get parent’s permission before using the image of a minor, if the minor was in public…

How do you feel about automated license plate readers?

That is a good suggestion though, rent out a drive through covered parking lot and you could get some privacy. I think the whole thing flapp is getting at is that there are things that are legal to do but we avoid them because it makes it harder to get along in society. There are lots of things we can all do legally in public but make people scared, concerned, creeped out, uncomfortable etc.

As for the minors thing, I think it is more of a courtesy than a requirement. I cannot think of any law against it here.

But, “because you can” means HPD can’t tell you to stop.

I’m a bit of an absolutist about this.  Don’t want to be recorded turning in guns at a “buyback” (totally disingenuous term)?  Don’t go to the buyback.

Don’t want people recording folks turning in guns at your “buyback”? Have it somewhere that you can legitimately restrict access, if you can figure out such a place.

And I’m not sure you have to get parent’s permission before using the image of a minor, if the minor was in public…

Read my posts more closely.  I said HPD can ask, but they can't order.  Exactly what you just said ("HPD can't tell you to stop = order).

Anyway, this is getting into a complicated issue.  it's illegal to photograph/record someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  That's the law.  Even if it's public property, the expectation of privacy rule applies (e.g. a public restroom on government property).

So, the complication comes into play with HPD promising "anonymity" for anyone turning in guns.  To me, that implies a promise of privacy.  If they'd chosen a location less visible from a public vantage point, then they'd still have to contend with people trying to get drone footage.

Even if a reasonable person could see they are in view of the public -- and able to have their photo taken -- it's also reasonable to assume HPD took steps to protect your privacy from that by posting officers to ask people to not record.

If they can't take any steps at all to stop participants from being recorded, then their promise of anonymity is empty.

I'm not an absolutist on 1A when the information has no real public interest.  What's to be gained by posting the images/videos of people in line to surrender their firearms in exchange for gift cards?  Part of the rationale for anonymity is so people with possibly unregistered or illegal firearms can participate.  Broadcasting their likenesses would discourage them from participating.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. 

The issue of minors is a sticky one.  Anyone whose been convicted of being a sexual predator, especially pedos, have restrictions such as not hanging around where kids gather and not taking videos or recordings of minors they don't already know.

I know newspapers and TV stations used to get signed consent before using images of minors, but that's gotten to be rare now with the advent of smartphones and Internet journalists.  Some states are starting to introduce bills to protect minors in public from having their images used online, but I have a feeling they'll be challenged in court.

Read my posts more closely.  I said HPD can ask, but they can't order.  Exactly what you just said ("HPD can't tell you to stop = order).

Anyway, this is getting into a complicated issue.  it's illegal to photograph/record someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  That's the law.  Even if it's public property, the expectation of privacy rule applies (e.g. a public restroom on government property).

So, the complication comes into play with HPD promising "anonymity" for anyone turning in guns.  To me, that implies a promise of privacy.  If they'd chosen a location less visible from a public vantage point, then they'd still have to contend with people trying to get drone footage.

Even if a reasonable person could see they are in view of the public -- and able to have their photo taken -- it's also reasonable to assume HPD took steps to protect your privacy from that by posting officers to ask people to not record.

If they can't take any steps at all to stop participants from being recorded, then their promise of anonymity is empty.

I'm not an absolutist on 1A when the information has no real public interest.  What's to be gained by posting the images/videos of people in line to surrender their firearms in exchange for gift cards?  Part of the rationale for anonymity is so people with possibly unregistered or illegal firearms can participate.  Broadcasting their likenesses would discourage them from participating.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. 

The issue of minors is a sticky one.  Anyone whose been convicted of being a sexual predator, especially pedos, have restrictions such as not hanging around where kids gather and not taking videos or recordings of minors they don't already know.

I know newspapers and TV stations used to get signed consent before using images of minors, but that's gotten to be rare now with the advent of smartphones and Internet journalists.  Some states are starting to introduce bills to protect minors in public from having their images used online, but I have a feeling they'll be challenged in court.

The Cops should have told them not to record anyone's face, their license plate, or anything else that could be used to identify them.

HPD cannot legally tell you that.  As you say, they can ask but cannot tell.

A restroom is very unlikely to be considered “in public,” and therefore a reasonable expectation of privacy can be established.  If the restroom is on government property, it’s no longer “in public…” The government can place reasonable restrictions on behavior on government property, even if it is a place of public accommodation.

If HPD promised participants they’d be free from having their picture taken, they promised something they can’t deliver.  Even if they make such a promise, that doesn’t establish a legal reasonable expectation of privacy.  If it did, all cops would have to do to prevent recording of traffic stops would be to promise the driver they stopped that they would be anonymous to the public, and voila!  A third-party 1A “auditor” can’t record the stop!

Whether or not there’s “real public interest” in photographing/video recording someone in public, it’s a protected activity (as long as it doesn’t rise to the level of violating another law, like harassment, stalking, or assault).  That’s doubly true when the First Amendment activity involves recording public servants (cops) in the execution of their duties (manning a gun buyback).

I agree that just because you can doesn’t always mean you should.  Persistently photographing or recording someone without their consent is obnoxious and rude… but that doesn’t change the fact that cops can’t tell you not to engage in an activity protected by the First Amendment.

Can you point me toward an ordinance or some case law that says sex offenders can be restricted from photographing minors in public?  (Yes, I googled it… the results indicate that sex offenders cannot be legally restricted from public photography, even of kids or young adults.  Might earn them a beating, though.)

HPD cannot legally tell you that.  As you say, they can ask but cannot tell.

A restroom is very unlikely to be considered “in public,” and therefore a reasonable expectation of privacy can be established.  If the restroom is on government property, it’s no longer “in public…” The government can place reasonable restrictions on behavior on government property, even if it is a place of public accommodation.

If HPD promised participants they’d be free from having their picture taken, they promised something they can’t deliver.  Even if they make such a promise, that doesn’t establish a legal reasonable expectation of privacy.  If it did, all cops would have to do to prevent recording of traffic stops would be to promise the driver they stopped that they would be anonymous to the public, and voila!  A third-party 1A “auditor” can’t record the stop!

Whether or not there’s “real public interest” in photographing/video recording someone in public, it’s a protected activity (as long as it doesn’t rise to the level of violating another law, like harassment, stalking, or assault).  That’s doubly true when the First Amendment activity involves recording public servants (cops) in the execution of their duties (manning a gun buyback).

I agree that just because you can doesn’t always mean you should.  Persistently photographing or recording someone without their consent is obnoxious and rude… but that doesn’t change the fact that cops can’t tell you not to engage in an activity protected by the First Amendment.

Can you point me toward an ordinance or some case law that says sex offenders can be restricted from photographing minors in public?  (Yes, I googled it… the results indicate that sex offenders cannot be legally restricted from public photography, even of kids or young adults.  Might earn them a beating, though.)

Again, I never said HPD should have TOLD them to not record.  Telling them not to record certain things would have been legally unenforceable. but they still promised anonymity.  So, making an effort would not be the worst violation of a right I've ever heard of.

As for government spaces, those are 100% public.  Go watch the "audit" videos.  Cops and government employees try to kick videographers off the property, and the ones who follow through wind up getting sued and losing.

Government can restrict access to protect resources, public information, etc., but any space a member of the public walks into can be recorded.  A private space, however, has 100% control, and they can post rules and signs restricting or banning photos and video.

1A is about limiting what government can do re: free speech and the press.  It only follows that government spaces have fewer powers to prevent recording, not more.

Once again, I never said HPD had a LEGAL leg to stand on.  I'm just saying there's no valid public interest being served by identifying gun buy-back participants.

Maybe we need to discuss responsibilities as much as we like to discuss rights.

Laws that limit what can be done with an image after it's taken are as close as they will come Federally.  if you take a picture of a minor in public without anyone's consent, it's a protected form of expression (some states are exceptions).  However, if the image is used commercially, the person using the image must obtain a release for its use whether the subject is an adult or minor.  Distribution of someone's photo in any from can also be a violation of the subjects privacy rights. You have a right to record what you see, but others who were not present at the public place where that was recorded have no right to view YOUR images without obtaining consent or having a reasonably articulable journalistic purpose. 

Virginia passed laws about recording minors for whom you are not the parent/legal guardian.  i was able to find a portion of Virginia's law regarding schools recording students.

8VAC20-671-670. Videotaping.
A. Schools shall have written policy and procedures regarding videotaping
students while in school and any school-sponsored activity, including those
used for staff training.

B. No student shall be videotaped without written consent of the parent and
eligible student.

C. Any videotaping of students shall be maintained confidentially unless there
is explicit written permission to release or disclose from the parent and eligible
student.

D. Buildings and grounds surveillance is not considered videotaping for the
purpose of this chapter.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter671/section670/

Georgia passed a stricter law in 2010:
§ 42-1-18 - "Photograph" defined; photographing minor
without consent of parent or guardian prohibited; penalty
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-42/chapter-1/article-2/42-1-18/

Here's the summary:

Consequently, as long as a photographer uses the images for editorial purposes,
and if the photographer took them while your child was in a public setting, the photographs
are generally within the law even if you do not give your consent. An example would be a
newspaper article about the condition of playgrounds in public parks; a journalist could
publish a photo that includes your child playing in the public park without your consent.

Of course, there are certain exceptions. For example, if the photo or video is used for
sexual or predatory purposes, this could violate child pornography laws.

State laws on this issue are shifting with the rise of social media. At least two states have
considered legislation to make it illegal to photograph children without parental permission.
Georgia passed a bill in 2010 that makes it illegal for anyone but a parent to photograph
or videotape a child, but the law may be revised to specifically address registered sex offenders.
New Jersey began working on a similar law in 2011, but the efforts seem to have stalled.
State laws, though, must yield to the First Amendment; in other words, they are limited in
the extent to which they can limit people from free expression, and they must be narrowly
tailored.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/personal-injury/types-of-personal-injury-claims/child-photography-or-videotaping-consent-laws-are-changing.html

Lot's of ifs and exceptions.

Again, I never said HPD should have TOLD them to not record.  Telling them not to record certain things would have been legally unenforceable. but they still promised anonymity.  So, making an effort would not be the worst violation of a right I've ever heard of.

As for government spaces, those are 100% public.  Go watch the "audit" videos.  Cops and government employees try to kick videographers off the property, and the ones who follow through wind up getting sued and losing.

Government can restrict access to protect resources, public information, etc., but any space a member of the public walks into can be recorded.  A private space, however, has 100% control, and they can post rules and signs restricting or banning photos and video.

1A is about limiting what government can do re: free speech and the press.  It only follows that government spaces have fewer powers to prevent recording, not more.

Once again, I never said HPD had a LEGAL leg to stand on.  I'm just saying there's no valid public interest being served by identifying gun buy-back participants.

Maybe we need to discuss responsibilities as much as we like to discuss rights.

Laws that limit what can be done with an image after it's taken are as close as they will come Federally.  if you take a picture of a minor in public without anyone's consent, it's a protected form of expression (some states are exceptions).  However, if the image is used commercially, the person using the image must obtain a release for its use whether the subject is an adult or minor.  Distribution of someone's photo in any from can also be a violation of the subjects privacy rights. You have a right to record what you see, but others who were not present at the public place where that was recorded have no right to view YOUR images without obtaining consent or having a reasonably articulable journalistic purpose. 

Virginia passed laws about recording minors for whom you are not the parent/legal guardian.  i was able to find a portion of Virginia's law regarding schools recording students.https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter671/section670/

Georgia passed a stricter law in 2010:
§ 42-1-18 - "Photograph" defined; photographing minor
without consent of parent or guardian prohibited; penalty
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-42/chapter-1/article-2/42-1-18/

Here's the summary:
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/personal-injury/types-of-personal-injury-claims/child-photography-or-videotaping-consent-laws-are-changing.html

Lot's of ifs and exceptions.

I’ve watched a few (or more) audit videos, and they almost without exception say that the government can make rules for government-owned property.

Taking photographs and video of things that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes transportation facilities, the outside of federal buildings, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.

(emphasis added)

They can absolutely restrict photography or video inside a government facility.

HPD can’t, and shouldn’t, tell citizens to stop recording anything that is visible from a public space (not necessarily a “space held open to the public,” which is a key distinction).

Schools, as either government facilities (public schools) or private property (private schools) can absolutely make rules about photographing/videoing folks inside their facility.

I wonder if the Georgia law has been challenged in court… I think if it were to be challenged, it’s very likely it would be struck down as facially unconstitutional.

Also, from your link:

Basically, with a few exceptions, it is actually perfectly legal for strangers to photograph or videotape your child, and they are free to post or publish the images as well.

(emphasis added)

Except for true commercial use, there is little restriction on publishing photographs or video of people without their consent.  Contrary to popular belief, simply offering a photograph for sale is NOT commercial use…

Here is a question for all you lawyer-type people.
This is a true story that happened about 2 weeks ago and I have pictures.

My son gave me a Canon DSLR-type camera that is much fancier than what I used before, so I was practicing learning how to use it.
There was a public school activity taking place at the public park near my house.
The park was NOT closed to the public.
While I was taking pictures of the event, a school employee told me that I can't publish any pictures without permission.

So what is the law here in Waipahu?

Here is a question for all you lawyer-type people.
This is a true story that happened about 2 weeks ago and I have pictures.

My son gave me a Canon DSLR-type camera that is much fancier than what I used before, so I was practicing learning how to use it.
There was a public school activity taking place at the public park near my house.
The park was NOT closed to the public.
While I was taking pictures of the event, a school employee told me that I can't publish any pictures without permission.

So what is the law here in Waipahu?

chicken fight!
just kidding. Public park. no expectation of privacy. They can intimidate you into submission but they have no legal grounds. I'm sure someone here has an opinion otherwise.