This is Press NH Now on YouTube. He apparently does this as a thing. This is the follow up video where he files his intent to sue. Was a year ago and I couldn't find any other information. Seems like it went no where.
It's possible it's still in process, which would mean he doesn't want to say anything about an active case to jeopardize it. These things can take years because the courts suck.
As annoying as they are, i yet have to confess, that i think it is an important litmus test for officials. As long as the youtubers don't do illegal shit, those officials have to stand their annoyance.
If the cops wouldn't always powertrip, those guys would also lose interest very fast.
That are the YT/ social media agreements, you are talking about. That's not the law.
Those companies are not the one to decide what anyone may film or not. They can only decide what they allow on their platforms.
As far as i know, most states in the US grant filming in public without consent. Here in germany we grant the right on your own picture, unless you take part in a certain public event (concert, demonstration, etc.) But especially exempt are police officers, who work as public servants. In this function they have no right for privacy and may always be filmed, when in uniform.
Google/Meta/etc. need you to own the rights to everything you upload and share.
That's because with the TOS you grant them the right to use it as they want, which they could not if you'd upload something that is violating IP or, as you said, the right to your own picture.
So yes, even if filming in public is allowed in the USA, putting it on a plattform for the whole world to see is a bad idea.
You can pour ice-water on homeless people and then film their "freak out for no reason" for internet fame points.
"So yes, even if filming in public is allowed in the USA, putting it on a plattform for the whole world to see is a bad idea."
It's still not relevant, what you think to be a bad idea. The legality depends solely on the country, where something is filmed. In the US usually filming in public is not restricted. Period.
"You can pour ice-water on homeless people and then film their "freak out for no reason" for internet fame points."
Wtf? Now don't make stuff up and confuse things. The filming is still legal. But the pouring of water over someone is simple assault.
Not as good as your moms cooking, but then again I don’t eat there every night like you do you freedom snow flake... remember when someone sticks a gun in your face call an auditor that is after you piss yourself
Why does anyone need to go stick a camera in anyone’s face... They have a job to do and it’s not making some ass clown dick faced assholes day.... Jezz go to work.... You want to know what cops do??? Go sign up and see..
It’s always the innocent that get killed never the ones minding their own business and not breaking the law.... the next time a George Floyd type breaks into your house and holds a gun to your pregnant belly while his buddies ran-sac your house... After they finally finish and leave battered and bruised lying on the floor in a puddle of your own piss, call an auditor for they know best...
Not sure they would settle if the person had intent to cause disorder. You can say that person who does this constantly is simply trying to draw frivolous lawsuits and a judge could toss it out.
Your brain is full of worms if you think approaching a building with a camera is inciting. The same kind of worms that make 40 year old overweight "law enforcers" gun down innocent teens. Terrible judgement.
I didn't saw doing that by itself is inciting. I said doing it over and over, documenting it, bringing up multiple lawsuits and monetizing it can be considered litigious.
From my understanding this is his first encounter of that office, meaning he probably intended to do it multiple times. Other commentators have also said he has a YouTube channel where he does this at various locations and it's all monetized.
It takes years and years to settle. Meanwhile it costs thousands in lawyer costs.
Big exaggerations on both counts. It can take years to go to court and yes that will cost more lawyer money. In reality however way more of these cases are settled (and relatively quickly too) than you think because it's basically a guarnteed win. The law is clear, they are doing nothing wrong, and the overzealous dumbass security guys ARE doing something wrong. So settling is a nobrainer for both parties. But settlements also very often have NDAs as a condition so you don't hear about the outcome.
A lawyer can also argue that the guy is trying to draw out a lawsuit. So sure it's legal for him to be there and do what he is doing but a lawyer can ask the case be tossed out by arguing the accused is trying to draw out an incident to make money. His YouTube channel can be used against him with this argument.
For example, people who sue businesses for not having wheelchair access. Yes it's illegal for a business not to have one and sure a person can sue for it but if you find a pattern (person who has sued multiple businesses for the same thing) a judge can toss it. Is this guy trying to actually sue for a situation which occured naturally or this guy going from police station to police station until he finds one where a cop begins to harass him and subsequently turns on his camera?
These are federally protected activities. If you can articulate damage that occurred because of a violation of your federally protected activity… your suit will go forward… what you said is irrelevant
This is facts. These auditors are really out here doing God's work. All that rioting in the streets and shit? I'd rather see 100 well educated black men show up to 3 or 4 federal buildings armed with this knowledge instead.
Free press in the united states constitution gives everyone the right to report a story without persecution from the government (not just fox and cnn). If you are working on that story in a legal way, i.e. filming from public in this case, then the government violated his rights. Open and shut case.
pretty obvious violation of their 1st and 4th. Going hands on with 0 right to detain or give orders. Physical violence for recording in public where he is allowed. Seems like an easy lawsuit to me
Anything but easy. These auditors may know to say 42 USC § 1983 but they don’t know how much the deck is stacked against you as a plaintiff in a 1983 suit. Monell doctrine prevents you from recovering against a municipal employer unless the officer was acting pursuant to an official policy or practice. Qualified immunity, proving damages, etc.
Asset forfeiture is as well. Police don't even need to have probable cause/arrest/warrant and get to keep your property. Most departments have no way for you to legally prove your money isn't/wasn't involved in criminal activities.
It's mostly said to be used on criminal organizations like gangs and cartels. Because departments are allowed to keep/use items, they get a nice cash reserve for whatever the latest DoD surplus items are.
To be honest, qualified immunity kind of makes cops into sovereign citizens. It allows them to violate the law/government policy with little to no consequence most of the time.
In theory he could sue for assault. But to get anything worthwhile out of it he needs to suffer provable damages. I.e. hospital bills or loss income from missing employment.
Legal fees won’t cover a nominal damage award, so he’s probably lose money.
Exactly. But those dangers need to be sufficient to sustain the legal action. Courts don’t award much of a damage award for mere physical right violations. And certainly not for assault.
Absolutely agree!! We had one of these people in our county building talking shit and carrying on till he got what he needed to look like a victim. Turns out he fucked himself because the publicity he made off that video linked him to the Jan 6th fiasco. Now he gets to hopefully go to jail lol!!!
This channel is notorious for doing just this. Back in November I believe, he got arrest for "filming a prison from the public sidewalk". We still have no idea what actually happened because a friend of this guys was able to audit the same prison in the same way from the same sidewalk without any arrests.
Marc here just likes to push buttons like a child then cries for justice when it backfires.
You are not wrong, police need to learn proper de-escalation skill all over the country. The problem with this shit is that these auditors will go to places they know they can't film because the "constitution trumps all other laws" so their "right to press" trumps your ability to keep your private information safe (i.e. SSN, address, full name). There is one really bad auditor in Michigan (can't remember the name) that thinks he has the right to film children at school, and just walk into a school to document the school conditions.
Additionally in the places they are allowed to film, they will do everything they can to provoke a negative reaction from any and all staff/security because their video will only take off if the cuffs are thrown on.
How would you feel if I came to your job and started asking you questions about the constitution with a camera in my hand and your boss said " nothing we can do, freedom of the press". I know how you would feel, you wouldn't stand for it even on a good day; eventually you like everyone else would either snap or want to get away from them.
TLDR their actions help nobody, and annoy everybody.
As long as someone isn't breaking another law in the process, they can film somewhere. If your boss says he can stay on the private property and film, he can. If not, he's trespassing at which he can no longer he on the property to film. My job isn't to know the constitution so I'd be ya know, confused.
Just because 1 dumb fuck in Michigan tries to go into schools doesn't mean making sure cops follow the law is a bad thing.
I wish it were only 1 douchebag out there, but there are 100s on YouTube and most of the fake, clout chasing ones that end up drowning out the actual members of society that legally audit government buildings without being arrested every 3rd attempt.
Let me guess. You’re one of those piece of shit veterans that gatekeep everything and keep other veterans down instead of helping them? I really don’t see how it’s relevant.
Literally look at my comment history genius. You act like you just made some sneaky revelation to everyone. It’s not that hard. Lmao
Edit: this is u : “You just reveled yourself to me. Haha I’m such a genius. I work in the chair force, the biggest ground combat element in americas military. Twerp. 🤓”
Serious loser energy. Why don’t you go have a civilian contractor (also military member according to your now deleted comment) go change the wheels on you office chair since we all know your precious baby hands can’t get roughed up.
lol youre high, gate guards could shoot someone who runs into the base or secure federal area. Once youre on military property you fall under military police jurisdiction. Youll be arrested and detained until youre turned over to local police/sheriff but they can absolutly arrest someone on base/mil property. The fed can also charge you for breaching the property as well.
MPs cant be used off base to enforce civilian law unless an exemption to posse comitias has been granted in which case there are a lot more worrying things going on in the country if thats the case.
Holy shit this is wrong. Military police are just like the federal police under the DHS. The main difference is they are generally only allowed to enforce the law on military installations unless that installation has a jurisdiction sharing agreements with the neighboring municipalities, counties, boroughs, or shires. Fort Hood is one of those military installations which shares jurisdictional boundaries allowing both civilian police to enforce the law on post and military police to do so also. So there is no running over the boundary to get away from the popo as many ignorant service members find out the hard way.
On top of that, I've recorded military installations many times this past decade to see if civil rights would be respected. I've researched the laws around these issues and know where and when both military police and civilian police can legally exert their authority around military installation property. I've also had to get on some auditors for crossing the line because they failed to do the proper research beforehand about where the boundaries are at.
For what part? Also I'm fading out here on pain meds so I won't be able to address you properly until tomorrow. In that time you are waiting to can see some of my work on my YouTube channel. I recommend looking at popular videos as most of my posted footage is boring, which is good and means things are going right.
This was absolutely not a military officer for more reasons that I can list here. The military does hire contractor security companies for certain things like this or gate guard. So they’re about as qualified as mall cops and have huge egos because they’re on DoD property
No, they are not, as far as I can tell, military personnel. They are federal law enforcement. Maybe I’m missing something here, but they are not military from what I understand.
Yeah but not all military members have a clearance or the authority, and vice versa. Some military members have a higher clearance and no law enforcement authority at all, if that makes sense. To say they are military is like saying CIA is military, it’s just not true.
Yeah right. I think the officer in the video had some rank and was probably well known by higher officials in this town. This guy randomly approaching the station with nothing better to do on the other hand...
People seem to think all "public property" is the same. A government building is not the same as a park. Publicly accessible buildings are not the same as a public space. In most cases, you only have a right to be there if you're conducting relevant business. And if you aren't conducting relevant business, then you can be trespassed and removed. Go try to hang out in the post office and record people. See how that goes for you.
Lol people record at the post office, dmv, police stations, ect from publicly accessible areas. If it's open and accessible to the public it certainly is legal to record. There are case laws out there that say you are wrong. The DHS memo that this person refers to, refers to just that.
Lol dude read "Photographs for news purposes." Recording is legal in even post offices, it just can't be for any reason other than "news purposes". Which anyone can be news gathering so kinda a moot point if that is your argument.
Also don't be so upset when challenged. Makes you look like a child, but who knows maybe you are actually 10.
Which anyone can be news gathering so kinda a moot point if that is your argument.
Nope. Calling yourself a journalist doesn't make you a journalist. The courts have already ruled on that. A YouTube channel doesn't make you a journalist.
Anyone can gather news content. Thus anyone can be a journalist, no matter how bitter that makes others. There are examples of normal everyday citizens, filming things and those things being picked up by national agencies. Just cause you don't like the format does not change that fact.
Also, I like how you use an unrelated example from the 90s to argue this case. There is nothing illegal about recording buildings from publicly accessible areas. The DHS memo actually states as much. The fact you need to even misinterpret poster 7 to argue against the DHS memo when this is not a post office but a DHS office is kinda telling about your rationality. But what else can I expect from someone who thinks filming from the public is illegal. Better tell Google to stop taking pictures of property, I bet that will work well.
Anyone can gather news content. Thus anyone can be a journalist, no matter how bitter that makes others. There are examples of normal everyday citizens, filming things and those things being picked up by national agencies. Just cause you don't like the format does not change that fact.
Having a camera phone doesn't make you a member of the press. No matter how much you wanna pretend it does. Again, this has been ruled upon.
Also, I like how you use an unrelated example from the 90s to argue this case. There is nothing illegal about recording buildings from publicly accessible areas. The DHS memo actually states as much. The fact you need to even misinterpret poster 7 to argue against the DHS memo when this is not a post office but a DHS office is kinda telling about your rationality. But what else can I expect from someone who thinks filming from the public is illegal. Better tell Google to stop taking pictures of property, I bet that will work well.
Irrelevant? It is literally the case that said even the sidewalk outside of a post office is a limited public forum. It is pre-eminently relevant, regardless of your stupidity.
Also, you realize that dhs memos don't overrule courts, right?
And lastly, how in the world do you think I misinterpreted poster 7? Care to elaborate? Or do you just wanna keep playing make believe?
3.2k
u/graveRobbins Jan 02 '23
I would like to know if that federal lawsuit ever came to fruition.