Is Filming the Police a First Amendment Right?

            Feidin Santana captured a key piece of evidence against an officer, Michael Slager, of him

fatally shooting an unarmed citizen, Walter Scott in the back numerous times. A second officer was

telling Santana to stop recording the incident, but he did not obey these orders and captured it all on

his phone’s camera. This is not the first time an incident like this has been recorded on a cellphone

and is being used as evidence in a trial. According to an article, from this type of situation the

question arises “do citizens have a First Amendment right to record police doing their jobs in public

places, such as streets, sidewalks and parks?”

            The United States Supreme Court has yet to give a definite answer to this question. They have 

left it up to the court in charge of the case to determine whether or not citizens have this right to 

record such events. Recently, a judge in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania decided that the answer is no, 

people do not have the right to film the police. His reasoning behind his decision is as he says, 

“Pennsylvania does not recognize a First Amendment right to observe and record without some form 

of expressive conduct…photographing police is not, as a matter of law, expressive activity.” 

According to this same article as before, he continues on to reason “the person recording must do so 

with the specific intent of criticizing or challenging the police conduct being recorded”.

          Other courts nationwide are saying that “a limited First Amendment right to record police 

doing their jobs in public venues, regardless of the intent of the person recording”. Either way, in the 

end as of now it is up to the court itself to determine whether each ruling can be determined using a 

recording or not, depending on whether or not a First Amendment case can be argued in their opinion 

or if the film is allowed as evidence at all.

Plessy v Ferguson: Dissenting Argument

          The Plessy v Ferguson decision was one of, if not the single, most discriminatory rulings in the

history  of the United States. This ruling established the "separate but equal" policy in the US

allowing black and whites to have separate accommodations as long as they were "equal" in quality,

although they weren't. Judge Harlan wrote out his opinion, because he was the only one who did not

agree with the separate but equal decision and was most likely hoping to change one person's vote or

even opinion about it as well.

          Judge Harlan made a very good argument, but in 1896 nobody was in agreement with his 

opinion. His losing argument went against everything they believed at this time because some still 

wanted slavery and others wanted discrimination, segregation, or were just racist. While we still 

have racism today, it is not to the extent where the majority would vote to uphold this decision. 

          His argument laid out the views we have today about this topic. He said "If a whit man and a 

black man choose to occupy the same public conveyance on a public highway, it is their right to do 

so, and no government, proceeding alone on grounds of race, can prevent it without infringing the 

personal liberty of each...The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so 

it is in prestige, in achievement in education, in wealth and in power...But in view of the 

Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of 

citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates 

classes among citizens." This is how the law is viewed today, so although this was the dissenting 

argument that only this one man agreed with then, is the law now.

Worst Colleges for Free Speech 2016

          The Huffington Post creates an annual list for the top ten colleges acting as the worst violators

of free speech in the country. This is the fifth list they have made and it has been a year full of

countless freedom of speech violations. The repercussions resulting from these situations have varied

from people filing lawsuits to others wanted free speech codes put in place or to change the rules

about free speech zones. This year on the list were colleges from around the country including Mount

St. Mary's University, Northwestern University, LSU, University of California San Diego, Saint

Mary's University of Minnesota, University of Oklahoma, Marquette University, Colorado College,

University of Tulsa, and Wesleyan University.

          The reason that LSU was put on this list was because of a teacher of twenty years named

Teresa Buchanan who invented a teach curriculum and won a lot of money for the University. Just

before her retirement, the University fired her because they said that her use of profanity was sexual


harassment. She had never been accused of

sexual harassment and had used this as a

method for their future teaching careers.

"LSU's policy defines sexual harassment as

'unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical

behavior of a sexual nature, 'mirroring the

language of the sexual harassment definition

propagated by the U.S. Departments of

Education and Justice in 2013 as 'a blueprint


for colleges and universities throughout the country.'" Because of this she has sued the University in

January, but the court case has not had a decision yet.


          At Colorado College, a post on the app Yik Yak

was made that said "#blackwomenmatter", to which

another student named Thaddeus Pryor responded

saying "They matter, they're just not hot". After the

college found out and he admitted to writing the

response, he was suspended for twenty-one months.

His suspension included the statement that he could

not get credit for classes at any college or university

during this time period. After the school was reminded

that this action of his was protected by his freedom of

expression, so the college decided that six months was a better length of suspension, yet they were

still violating this freedom and therefore are violating his First Amendment rights.

Apple iPhone Code for the FBI

          Apple Incorporated may end up going to the supreme court to fight the FBI over an issue that 

they believe will be violating people's First Amendment rights. The FBI has gotten a judge to order 

Apple to unlock the iPhone of an attacker in San Bernardino. Apple is fighting back against this order 

from the judge, because the code they would have to write for the FBI to be able to do this would 

make it possible for the FBI to access information and unlock any iPhone, not just the attacker's. This 

breach of privacy is infringing upon the First Amendment rights of US citizens because the first 

amendment gives citizens the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression which are being 

taken away.

          In order to show their support for Apple's fight for citizens rights, a group of protestors 

called "Fight for the Future" organized marches 

across the country and exercised another right 

given to them by the First Amendment known as 

the Freedom to Assemble. Apple is using case 

precedent to show that the writing of computer 

code is protected by the First Amendment 

because it is a form of expressive action and that

the case should be taken to Congress and not the normal courts.

          "Apple will say the judge in the case has overreached in her use of an obscure law and 

infringed on the company's 1st Amendment rights, and Apple attorney said". According to a poll 

taken recently, more than half of the people who voted supported the FBI and their efforts to unlock 

the attacker's phone through coding. 

For more info visit: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-apple-fbi-first-amendment-congress-20160224-story.html

State v Mann: Moot Court Case

          In class, we reenacted another court case as a moot court case of the State v Mann Case about

whether or not Mann should be punished because he was "leasing" a slave from someone else and

while punishing her with a whipping, she tried to escape and he shot her in the back. The state

charged him with assault and he appealed saying that he was in the right with his actions.

          The first side to argue was the State and they made five

arguments as to why Mann should not be punished for shooting

the slave, Lydia. They first used quotes from the Bible showing

how religion was unsupportive of slavery. Second, they said that

Mann was committing the crime of attempted murder. The third

argument they used was the Law of Property, making the

argument that Lydia was not owned by Mann and just being

"leased" that he didn't have the right to treat her as his property

and shoot her. They just used the plain argument that slavery

itself was unconstitutional and that slavery should not be allowed in the first place so this shouldn't

have even happened. Their final argument was that non-slaving owning white's were being oppressed

because of those that were slave owning.

          Next up was the Mann team who was arguing that the two previous court cases' rulings

charging Mr. Mann should be overturned. Their first argument was stating the fact that legally in

North Carolina, slavery was allowed and slaves were to be considered the property of their owners.

They then added to this by saying that the law and even the Bible said that slaves were to obey their

masters and be submissive to them or they could be punished. They said that it was the slaves fall that

she was shot because if she had just obeyed her owner and not tried to escape, then he wouldn't have

had to shoot her. Since Mr. Mann had signed a contract with Lydia's actual owner when he leased her,

he was legally her owner for a year and therefore could punish her how he saw fit as his property.

And their final argument was that the slave could have escaped if he had not shot her and then their

contract would have been broken because he couldn't return her after the year was up and therefore

shooting her was better than letting her escape.
       

          The court ruled just like in real life in favor of Mann, taking the side of the law at the time in

North Carolina. In the real life court case, they ruled that inhumane punishment of slaves was legal

because they were property not people or citizens, legal protections for slaves weren't allowed, and

owner's of any kind of slaves could do anything necessary to make the slave obey them.

Dred Scott v Sanford: Moot Court Case

          In class, we did a moot court case, reenacting and arguing the sides of the famous court case:

Dred Scott v Sanford. The Dred Scott side was arguing to prove that Scott was in fact a free man, 

while the Sanford side was arguing that he was to remain a slave under the control of his owners.

 This was a debate because Scott's former master, who had passed away, had traveled with him into 

the two free states Minnesota and Illinois, but then later returned to their slave state of Missouri. Then 

after his owner's death, Scott claimed that he was a free man now instead of becoming the slave of his 

former master's widow.

          The first side to argue was the Dred Scott side who made three arguments as to why he should 

be free. They used case precedent that once a slave is moved into a free state they remain a free 

person. They argued the "wine case" that once free, someone was always free. They said that the 

Missouri Compromise made slavery unconstitutional in the area that Dred Scott was living. Their 

final argument was made that there was no reason for Sanford wanting to keep Scott as a slave and 

was practicing "ignorance of the law".

          The second side to argue was the Sanford side who made four counterarguments as to why he 

should remain a slave. This side argued that the Missouri Compromise was overstepping and was 

therefore unconstitutional. We argued that Scott was a slave and therefore was property, meaning that 

he was not a citizen of the United States, and therefore had no right to sue under the law. We said that 

if the court were to take away Sanford's property, Scott would have to give something to Sanford as 

compensation, but he was never offering anything to her. And finally, the Fugitive Slave Law was 

used saying that the privileges and immunities were covered over the several states, he had to be 

returned even though he entered free land, and that he missed his chance to sue for his freedom when 

he was in the free state because he had already returned to the slave state.

          Just like the real life court case, the judge 

ruled in our favor, that Scott should remain a 

slave. He agreed that the Missouri Compromise 

was unconstitutional, the Fugitive Slave Law 

protected Sanford's slave as property, and that 

because he was property he was not a citizen

and could not sue.

Cell-Tracking Stingray Surveillance Tool

          The FBI has a new surveillance tool called the "stingray" which can be used to track a cell

 phone by tricking the phone into thinking it's a cell-phone tower and locking onto it. The city of San

Diego has purchased one for their law enforcement to use, but the problem with the use of this device

is that the information about it and it's use is not available to the public, or even many members of

law enforcement or the judicial system. 

         The FBI has prohibited "police from disclosing information about the device and how to

operate it in search warrants, affidavits, grand jury hearings, 'in response to court ordered disclosure' 

or any part of a civil or criminal trial -- without written approval by the FBI". This means that the 

judge of a case in which the stingray has been used, will not know that this is the form of surveillance 

device is being used. Therefore if a judge signs a warrant he can not fully determine or decide if he 

thinks this is constitutional because he is not made aware of the device's use. 

          Some information about the device has been released though, like the fact that the stingray 

does not specifically lock onto one phone, but instead tracks and can receive texts, emails, or other 

forms of communication from any phone in the area that it is in. 

       This is a breach of the privacy 

of people who are not even being 

targeted because their information 

and private conversations are

being monitored or picked up

just because of their location.

It is also unfair that the device

and any information about it can


not be put into a case or warrant, and if it is or the FBI is uncomfortable with anything about a case

involving the stingray, they can shut the case down immediately. The device and it's secrecy could be

considered unconstitutional in it's way of getting information without anybody's knowledge besides

the FBI.

To read more about this visit: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/feb/13/cell-tracker-nondisclosure/