Illinois passes law making it a felony to Record police.

[RenoChazz]

Is this good or bad?

I guess now we can now call Blacks thugs and animals for filming the police, and if they'd just obey the law they wouldn't get beat.

The Bill passed 106-7 in the House and 46-4 in the Senate. Bi-partisan laws are the best.

Ironic that such a law is passed in progressive Illinois, home of the President.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illinois-felony-citizens-record-police-media-silent/

 

[Betallsports]

This Country is beginning to be a Joke... well it has been lately

What's next ?? Killing someone for selling loose cigarettes ??

oh right, that happened already

 

[texansfan]

Did anyone read the article? The law makes it illegal to record both police AND citizens. The difference is a higher penalty for recording police. This bill says nothing regarding FILMING police.


According to IllinoisPolicy.org, the bill discourages people from recording conversations with police by making unlawfully recording a conversation with police – or an attorney general, assistant attorney general, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney or judge – a class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to four years in prison. Meanwhile, the bill makes illegal recording of a private citizen a class 4 felony, which carries a lower sentencing range of one to three years in prison.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/il...cord-police-media-silent/#FS4HlcpLkkWI2tu5.99

 

[scottcarter]

RenoChazz Slapping-silly90))

 

[Bourn]

RenoChazzSlapping-silly90))

Scott - fly it proud, man.

 

[scottcarter]

Scott - fly it proud, man.

did you lose a bet to MikeB also?

 

[RenoChazz]

It's pretty ambiguous. If a cop sees you video taping, he can reasonably assume that it's recording the sound too, and threaten force, or arrest if you don't stop.

 

[texansfan]

It's pretty ambiguous. If a cop sees you video taping, he can reasonably assume that it's recording the sound too, and threaten force, or arrest if you don't stop.

Wrong, it's not illegal to videotape the police. Even the Supreme Court has upheld the right to do so. The article makes the case that this new law could lead to not being able to film police.

I do agree that it can lead to a slippery slope, but my point was that Illinois didn't pass a law prohibiting the filming of police.

 

[RenoChazz]

Wrong, it's not illegal to videotape the police. Even the Supreme Court has upheld the right to do so. The article makes the case that this new law could lead to not being able to film police. The article is incorrect.

What if you video tape them with sound? The law states no recording police while in the performance of his or her official duty. If you are filming you are more than likely also recording the sound. And really what's the difference. Illinois did pass the law earlier as filming, and the supreme court did shut them down. Now it looks like they're trying to get around that decision with a little wording change, I'll bet this law gets shut down by the supreme court too. The wording should be recording private conversations, and thats not the wording of the law.

 

[RenoChazz]

Plus if you're close enough to video tape, the cop could assume you are close enough to eaves drop and hear the conversation, which is also against the law under this bill. It's pretty obvious what this bill is about.

(a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is a Class 4 felony (from Ch. 38, par. 14-4) and, for a second or subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony. (b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of <del style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: HelveticaNeue-Light, 'Helvetica Neue Light', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">between</del> any law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony <del style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: HelveticaNeue-Light, 'Helvetica Neue Light', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; line-height: 19px;">1 felony.</del>
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/il...cord-police-media-silent/#rvIQq7uUGsof0xGi.99

 

[Bourn]

did you lose a bet to MikeB also?

I did about a month ago.

 

[texansfan]

What if you video tape them with sound? The law states no recording police while in the performance of his or her official duty. If you are filming you are more than likely also recording the sound. And really what's the difference. Illinois did pass the law earlier as filming, and the supreme court did shut them down. Now it looks like they're trying to get around that decision with a little wording change, I'll bet this law gets shut down by the supreme court too. The wording should be recording private conversations, and thats not the wording of the law.

To me, filming is filming. The law passed doesn't make a distinction in the scenarios you described. It just describes audio recordings. Like I said though, it could be a slippery slope with this new law. I'm sure someone will be arrested and charged, will be found guilty, and then the case will work it's way through the appeals process.

As far as arresting for filming, a person still can't interfere with a crime scene or any other police related investigation. Who decides what exactly that is? I'm guessing either the DA or a jury. Like we say, you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

 

[RenoChazz]

Could a mod change the title from film, to record, to make it factual. (even though they're basically the same thing) Thanks.

 

[buddyboy]

unlawfully recording

you can still record, you just can't do it unlawfully.

only thing this does is change the classification of current law.

look up what a lawful recording is in that state.

 

[Enfuego]

Could a mod change the title from film, to record, to make it factual. (even though they're basically the same thing) Thanks.

Very different in the eyes of the law.

 

[NES]

old story, was overturned long ago no?

 

[RenoChazz]

Very different in the eyes of the law.

So if I secretly film a judge while he is in his chambers I wouldn't be guilty of this crime, because we have picture as well as sound?

This law doesn't change what is an unlawful recording for regular folks, but it does for the police, and I quote the new law, "while in the performance of his or her official duties" That would include public, which changes what is currently an unlawful recording. The supreme court has ruled that the police have no expectation of privacy in public. No way this law last because of that wording.

 

[RenoChazz]

old story, was overturned long ago no?

Yes, a while back the same legislation tried to make filming police in public a felony and got shut down. What's new is they changed the wording around last night, to try to get around the supreme courts decision, and passed it. But it will eventually be overturned too.

 

[HacheMan]

This Country is beginning to be a Joke... well it has been lately

What's next ?? Killing someone for selling loose cigarettes ??

oh right, that happened already

Amen

 

[Enfuego]

So if I secretly film a judge while he is in his chambers I wouldn't be guilty of this crime, because we have picture as well as sound?

This law doesn't change what is an unlawful recording for regular folks, but it does for the police, and I quote the new law, "while in the performance of his or her official duties" That would include public, which changes what is currently an unlawful recording. The supreme court has ruled that the police have no expectation of privacy in public. No way this law last because of that wording.

Filming a guy in private when he has a reasonable expectation of privacy and in public are very different things altogether.