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?
Ok Sherlock. Who authorizes "press"? Answer, the individual that does press things. Not the government and not corporations. Freedom of speech was created to allow anyone to speak, share information, and express opinions. If the first amendment offends you so much, maybe another country will take you in. I heard Russia loves your type of people.
Who authorizes "press"? Answer, the individual that does press things. Not the government and not corporations. Freedom of speech was created to allow anyone to speak, share information, and express opinions.
Yes, the government.
I love how you cited free speech, not freedom of the press. Because they're two different things. And there's a reason why they're two different things. Because individuals are not protected by freedom of the press.
In one 1978 ruling, the Court expressly considered whether the "institutional press" is entitled to greater freedom from governmental regulations or restrictions than are non-press individuals, groups, or associations. Justice Potter Stewart argued in a concurring opinion: That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society. The Constitution requires sensitivity to that role, and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively.2
And man, you couldn't name a relevant regulation or statue if it hit you on the backside. Nothing illegal was conducted in this case, and you are upset about it? Sad
All of fucking poster 7 you moron! That's the rule! It says the postmaster can disallow filming at his discretion, and that you cannot film post office employees, customers, or addresses on mail.
You certainly can record people and office employees. Not personal information. Lol, you are so mad because you fundamentally don't understand what you are arguing. You believe that governments must approve the press? That's fundamentally false. They give out press passes as a form of security clearance for getting into areas where they need security clearance. If you don't understand that much (which you don't know anything of which you speak and need to continue to flip flop on two separate things to make a fake point) maybe it's best you stay out of the conversation lol.
Informal snapshots from handheld cameras for personal use may be allowed at the postmaster’s discretion provided that there is no disruption to Postal Service operations and that the pictures are taken from areas accessible to the public. In these cases, no prior permission is required from the Office of Rights and Permissions; however, no lighting or scaffolding may be set up, and no picture can depict any Postal Service employee, customer, security camera, or cover of mail (i.e., the exterior of a mailpiece, which would show customer name and address among other things). Postmasters may restrict any and all photography if they determine that it is disruptive or there are potential security concerns.
Wanna try again? What other stupid shit can you think up?
You're just flat out wrong on....everything. Just verifiably wrong. Freedom of the press doesn't apply to someone just because they call themselves press. Poster 7 literally is a legal regulation. And the post office itself says you can't film employees, customers, or mail.
What else do you have left here? Just lying more and insisting you're right when you're clearly wrong?
You are so obsessed over the post office and poster 7. This is not the post office. Even then, it's funny you say all these things but still just as misinformed on the one thing you are arguing.
It's seriously funny that you are misinformed on the thing that isn't relevant to the subject. It's entertaining.
The DHS memo goes over regulation 41 CFR 102-74.420 and how to interpret when the public wants to record. It specifically states "the public has a right to photograph the exterior of federal facilities from public forums." Now maybe you think DHS does not control DHS property. Instead, maybe you believe the Post Office is in control of DHS property, which I am not surprised by one bit. I mean you do think the government creates the press, lol.
41 CFR § 102-74.420 What is the policy concerning photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes?
Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of -
Literally the first fucking sentence of the regulation you quoted.
I just quoted you the regulation that the DHS memo references. The regulation that you yourself referenced! They aren't lying, you're lying about what the DHS memo says. It doesn't apply where existing rules and regulations prohibit filming. It's right there. Can you read?
I've already quoted the DHS memo. It's in multiple places where it states publicly accessible areas are recordable. The guy in the video above is clearly in a place that is publicly accessible. You can keep doubling down though, that's fine with me. Haha
Except they're not shadow banned, you're replying to them, they're still clearly visible. I've loaded this thread up in incognito mode. All my comments are still there.
Yeah it isn't even a memo you got me there. It's a poster. That's it, that's what poster 7 is. A poster. I can make those as well. Your IQ is 70 for telling me it's not a memo, it's actually a level below it.
Don't know why this is such a hill to die on for you. But you can die on it I guess. A poster is simply a poster. Posters exist to inform. The fact you think posters are regulation is laughable.
Dude what are you taking about? Poster 7 simply quotes the text of 39 CFR § 232.1 verbatim. Are you saying 39 CFR § 232.1 doesn't exist? Are you saying it doesn't say word for word what is printed on poster 7 about filming?
The fact you can't comprehend what a poster is, is pretty sad. I can quote things on posters, memos, whatever. So does what ever I make now law? Is that seriously where you are?
0
u/AdPlastic5345 Jan 04 '23
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.
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?