1984 - Fahrenheit 451 - Animal Farm

[Artful]

Watch the First Amendment Die as a Female Reporter Attacked by Cops for Filming Them

For doing her First Amendment protected job as a reporter, an editor of a local newspaper was assaulted and detained by cops—for filming them.

MATT AGORIST — SEPTEMBER 2, 2018

Denver, CO — Body camera footage was released this week showing two Denver police officers assault and kidnap an innocent reporter from the Colorado Independent for doing her First Amendment protected job.

The incident happened in July as Susan Greene, the Colorado Independent‘s editor, was attempting to report on two officers she saw surrounding a nearly-naked black man who was sitting handcuffed on the sidewalk. Greene — well within her First Amendment right to do so — took out her camera and began recording.

As Green attempted to film, however, she was immediately confronted by Officer James Brooks who moved in to block her from filming.

After Brooks moves in to block Greene, officer Adam Paulsen quickly joins in as well and the two proceed to tell the woman that she is not allowed to photograph them because it violates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rights of the nearly naked handcuffed man.

“There’s also a First Amendment,” Greene responds to the HIPAA claim. “Have you heard of it?”

“That doesn’t supersede HIPAA,” Paulsen says.

Brooks then says, “Step away, or you’ll be arrested for interference.”

Brooks then swats the phone away and immediately after the warning, the officers move in to arrest the woman — for her allegedly protected First Amendment right to film them.

“Stand up straight,” Paulsen tells Greene. “Act like a lady.”

...

Police then kidnapped Greene and placed her in a police cruiser. After falsely imprisoning her for 12 minutes, the officers realized they had nothing with to charge her, so Greene was released.

Greene then asks for their badge numbers and the cops respond by asking her for her press badge. A press badge is not required to film police in public.

Last week, Greene said that the District Attorney’s office called her to inform her that the officers would not be facing charges for falsely imprisoning her.

...

After the video was released this week, Greene responded in another article saying that the footage detailed the situation exactly like she remembered it.

“It squares exactly like how I remember it,” she said. “The only thing I didn’t realize is that when it was happening, both of the police officers told me to act like a lady, which raises the question: How exactly should a lady act when being wrongly detained on a public sidewalk for exercising First Amendment rights?”

The Independent said they are planning for the possibility of legal action against the department.

Below are the two body camera videos.

...

This is pretty sickening to me - I usually support LEO's but NOT if they are trying to act like thugs.

[garandguy10]

Can not watch anything without a link to a video.....

[pistolero1911]

Google is your friend, use it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Susa...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[Black Blade]

Just a little OT here, but after watching the video and all my police friends it seems that "skinhead" is a fashion statement in the law enforcement community. I never did figure out why it became so prevalent among LEOs over the last few years. Anyone know how this came about?

[HD-Ghost]

I'm guessing the filming of the near-naked man was a violation of HIS rights (not the cops)?

[357ross]

Originally Posted by Black Blade

Just a little OT here, but after watching the video and all my police friends it seems that "skinhead" is a fashion statement in the law enforcement community. I never did figure out why it became so prevalent among LEOs over the last few years. Anyone know how this came about?

Intimidation is what it is supposed to be about, been around for a while now, though.

[Artful]

Originally Posted by HD-Ghost

I'm guessing the filming of the near-naked man was a violation of HIS rights (not the cops)?

Hmm, doesn't seem to much problem when you go to the beach, or other places out in public.

[Blackmore]

Originally Posted by Black Blade

Just a little OT here, but after watching the video and all my police friends it seems that "skinhead" is a fashion statement in the law enforcement community. I never did figure out why it became so prevalent among LEOs over the last few years. Anyone know how this came about?

Certain drugs are retained in hair folicles for weeks rather than a few days in urine. Forget if it was an Boston area FD or PD that had members in for mandatory testing. Expected to give urine but were told they were giving up hair samples. All refused until they could talk with union. Presented themselves next day, all with shaved heads. There was a threat to go elsewhere for hair folicles but never heard if they went Brazilian, too.

[Black Blade]

Originally Posted by 357ross

Intimidation is what it is supposed to be about, been around for a while now, though.

Maybe. I heard various reasons including many are ex-military also doesn't give bad folk something to grab onto during a struggle. Just never knew why it seemed to suddenly become popular in the LEO community around the late 1980s early 1990s forward. Not that it really matters but I just curious if there was some reason why it appears to have happened from coast to coast as it were.

[justashooter]

Originally Posted by Black Blade

Maybe. I heard various reasons including many are ex-military also doesn't give bad folk something to grab onto during a struggle. Just never knew why it seemed to suddenly become popular in the LEO community around the late 1980s early 1990s forward. Not that it really matters but I just curious if there was some reason why it appears to have happened from coast to coast as it were.

the appearance of military threat is of more value than the actual threat, itself. FR-8 look like CETME through a binoc from 500 yards when slung in formation.

[justashooter]

Originally Posted by HD-Ghost

I'm guessing the filming of the near-naked man was a violation of HIS rights (not the cops)?

if he was non compos mentis for any reason he did not have ability to consent, so her filming was a violation of his privacy.

she is wrong. the cops were right.

[ddbtoth]

Originally Posted by HD-Ghost

I'm guessing the filming of the near-naked man was a violation of HIS rights (not the cops)?

That's not how HIPAA works.

[MACV]

Originally Posted by yellowhand

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-profes...ons/index.html




Said another way, your right to free speech ends at the knuckles on my right fist when you're being an entitled asshole.

Are you a cop?

[Tak]

Originally Posted by yellowhand

OK, let's change a few things in this whole story.

Instead of an older adult male black man, insert, YOUR 16 year old daughter or your 35 year old wife or your 65 year old mother.

One of them above is down hard in the public street, naked, acting strange, out of it, and several police officers roll up and take control of the situation, because your loved one is out of control, down in the street naked for some reason.

Are they, your loved ones sick, psychotic, having a seizure, been mugged and or raped, high on drugs, etc?

The cops don;t know, they just got there, called for an ambulance, and are securing the scene with officers backed off 50 yards blocking people from walking up, and taking pictures/film of your naked loved one down hard in the public street.

Then up walks a middle aged woman, with a camera, the officer says, stop, proceed no further, and stop filming your naked daughter, mother, wife being tended by EMT's.

The woman with the camera refuses, then tries to push past the officer, still filming your naked love one laying in the public street.

And the woman now gets cuffed up and detained, placed into a police care and released shortly thereafter.

She even gets warned, woman, act like a lady and stop this filming before being cuffed up, nope, she continues on filming your naked 16 year sick daughter hard down in the public street.

This "reporter" got cuffed up because she refused to stay away from a potential crime scene, tried to push pass a police officer, tried to film your 16 yr old sick naked daughter laying in the public street.

Never mind, all cops are evil, only live to suppress the free press, block citizens movement down a public street, tells women to act like a lady with a cell phone filming your naked sick, victim of a crime 16 yr old daughter,,, hell no, its all just 1984 shit coming true right in front of our eyes.

If it is a 16 year old, then there could be a child pornography violation taking place if there is filming or pictures being taken, even if in plain public view.

Otherwise, the cops have NO RIGHT to say BOO to the citizen doing the filming unless they are actually physically interfering with the policeman's execution of his job or the the job of EMTs.

There is no expectation of privacy in plain view in public and the cops citing HIPAA is an absolute joke. Yes it's a shitty thing to be filming it but its in plain view.

The Cops should have been charged/ punished, and DA should be run out of town.

[Tak]

Originally Posted by yellowhand

Maybe, maybe not in this case.

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-profes...ons/index.html


Would this be any different if the police stopped anyone from entering into the ER and filming patients, WITHOUT their Consent, as they receive emergency medical care by members of the medical profession who are covered by HIPPA????

An ER, or a public street, people sick or ill deserve their medical treatment to be protected from public disclosure/filming etc.

Regardless, filming a naked man, down hard in the street, while being attended to by medical personnel and having the scene controlled by the local police, ain't right, and sure as hell, is not acting like a lady!

We have our first amendment rights, we also have a responsibility for decency and protecting people who can't, for whatever reason, can't protect themselves.

Said another way, your right to free speech ends at the knuckles on my right fist when you're being an entitled asshole.

You don't have a right to be wandering into an ER to start filming.

You do on a public street in plain view.

[tac-40]

If a crime scene has been established around the man down, then access is limited to those who have a need to enter, meaning first responders. The media has no right to enter, interfere with or contaminate a crime scene. In reality, if she passed by the control points and entered the crime scene, she could have her camera and video taken as evidence (it is now in the crime scene) and she can be subpoenaed to appear in court and testify as a potential witness. And the courts have asserted that media personnel who have done that in the past do NOT have freedom of the press and first amendment rights in this instance. Had she remained behind the control point and videoed the scene, she would have been left alone.

[MACV]

Originally Posted by tac-40

If a crime scene has been established around the man down, then access is limited to those who have a need to enter, meaning first responders. The media has no right to enter, interfere with or contaminate a crime scene. In reality, if she passed by the control points and entered the crime scene, she could have her camera and video taken as evidence (it is now in the crime scene) and she can be subpoenaed to appear in court and testify as a potential witness. And the courts have asserted that media personnel who have done that in the past do NOT have freedom of the press and first amendment rights in this instance. Had she remained behind the control point and videoed the scene, she would have been left alone.

I believe that is the correct answer. She got too pushy. She should have stayed back and filmed. HIPAA rights have nothing to do with this situation.

[Riversidesports]

Originally Posted by yellowhand

An ER, or a public street, people sick or ill deserve their medical treatment to be protected from public disclosure/filming etc.


One of the LEO's here commented, yep, public street, everything is fair game for the public, so long as they don;t cross a police line, interfere with the LEO's and medical folks and such.

Decently behaving people, don;t need laws to protect their words or actions.

And we have a ton of laws in this country to go along with a ton of people that can't spell decency.

People being decent, don't need to be told not to video other peoples sufferings, public or otherwise,,,, under any circumstance, they simply know its not the right thing to do.

Can anyone video anything they want to in a public street, of course they can.

Is it decent, oh hell no, not by any civilized persons standards.

True enough friend

Frankly I detest this need current society has to cam every damn thing, post it to the Webs in a hope of affirming the few fleeting moments of Warholian fame...it's truly a sickness of the Information Age
Recently there was that deal where the Cops were attempting to restrain a perp outside a gas station pleading for assistance from a Security Guard who was glued to her cell phone camming it all up.

Don't know about the rest of you but if an Officer is on the ground begging for my help he's likely going to get it

This detachment from humanity, this voyerism that has became the new societal norm is a quite dangerous thing and bodes not well for the future of our species

[Thorack]

Originally Posted by justashooter

if he was non compos mentis for any reason he did not have ability to consent, so her filming was a violation of his privacy.

she is wrong. the cops were right.

Well,

Got the jack boots pulled up pretty tight today eh?

Its in public so just like a streaker even if he is non compos mentis he has no right to privacy on public street. If she had stayed back say, 17 feet from the "crime scene" to film, she probably wouldn't have been detained by Team Fife.

Thorack

[Ted Kennedy]

It's my understanding that the woman, a journalist, had been writing, documenting police interactions with homeless folks after some bad incidents.

I find it very likely that she was documenting possible bad behavior, the cops knew who she was, and didn't like being videotaped.

I doubt very much that she was videotaping to get lewd or salacious content for sensationalized articles....

Not that any of that matters. She was NOT breaking any laws, if she was you can bet those guys would have arrested her. She simply "failed to comply", and got the all-too-familiar resulting treatment.

[V guy]

All around hospitals, are signs, " IT IS NOT ALRIGHT TO TELL ANYONE ABOUT ANYONE'S ILLNESS OR HOSPITALIZATION."...HIPPA.

Hippa has superceded all common sense.

If you are going down with cancer, why hide it? Or you have aids.....it is a pubic duty to notify everyone, and hang a skull and crossbones on your doorway.

Are you insane??? and a 17 year old...Hippa is hiding that fact from NICS.

Liberals thought HIPPA up, over abortions for 14 year old whores.

[Enquiring Minds]

The very pushy, obnoxious, out-of-line, and decidedly UN-ladylike Susan Greene of Duh Colorado Independent is... as you might have guessed... A "Chosen" Child of Abraham... more equal than the goyim... her only concern is the downtrodden... yeah, right. Discuss.

[Grizz44]

Originally Posted by Enquiring Minds

The very pushy, obnoxious, out-of-line, and decidedly UN-ladylike Susan Greene of Duh Colorado Independent is... as you might have guessed... A "Chosen" Child of Abraham... more equal than the goyim... her only concern is the downtrodden... yeah, right. Discuss.

Says you you anti semetic Nazi Pig Fucker.

[LYCAN]

Originally Posted by Blackmore

Certain drugs are retained in hair folicles for weeks rather than a few days in urine. Forget if it was an Boston area FD or PD that had members in for mandatory testing. Expected to give urine but were told they were giving up hair samples. All refused until they could talk with union. Presented themselves next day, all with shaved heads. There was a threat to go elsewhere for hair folicles but never heard if they went Brazilian, too.

well, unless they also shaved every chest/back/leg/armpit, they'd still be accountable.

Because those hold hairs hold the same..info.

[longhair51]

Originally Posted by Grizz44

Says you you anti semetic Nazi Pig Fucker.

So, is that:

Says you you anti semetic, Nazi, Pig Fucker.

or:

Says you you anti semetic, Nazi Pig, Fucker.

I agree with you, BTW, but just couldn't help myself.

[Ted Kennedy]

Originally Posted by Enquiring Minds

The very pushy, obnoxious, out-of-line, and decidedly UN-ladylike Susan Greene of Duh Colorado Independent is... as you might have guessed... A "Chosen" Child of Abraham... more equal than the goyim... her only concern is the downtrodden... yeah, right. Discuss.

So she is a descendant of Abraham and Hagar...not surprised. All the anti-Israel media bias and all.

But who really cares?

Free speech, public place.

JBTs doin' JBT stuff.