The United States Court of Appeals, First District, has rendered an opinion about a case involving a private citizen arrested for video tapping officers making an arrest, and the confiscation of his cellphone. The PDF is here:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1764P-01A.pdf
It is VERY interesting because the Judge describes the current position of the 1st and 4th Amendments in the rulings of the courts. For example, while the 1st Amendment protects the right of free speech, by implication it also protects the right to RECEIVE (hear, read, see) the output of free speech in any and all of its forms. The decision discusses how that is true and legally binding.
EDIT: I forgot to add the reason why this ruling is so relevant:
http://deadlinelive.info/2011/08/24/...a-cell-phones/
A public official, in the act of doing public business in a public building ....
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1764P-01A.pdf
It is VERY interesting because the Judge describes the current position of the 1st and 4th Amendments in the rulings of the courts. For example, while the 1st Amendment protects the right of free speech, by implication it also protects the right to RECEIVE (hear, read, see) the output of free speech in any and all of its forms. The decision discusses how that is true and legally binding.
EDIT: I forgot to add the reason why this ruling is so relevant:
http://deadlinelive.info/2011/08/24/...a-cell-phones/
A public official, in the act of doing public business in a public building ....
Comment