"Now, Glick - a criminal defense attorney, according to his lawyer"
I don't get it. Have Journalistic standards slipped so much that they couldn't even corroborate this simple piece of information? Or is it something I'm missing?
I don't get it. Have Journalistic standards slipped so much that they couldn't even corroborate this simple piece of information? Or is it something I'm missing?
One other thing that came up last night on the local public radio station: They interviewed someone from the ACLU who said that if the camera was hidden during the taping, that would be a violation of the law (it wasn't, apparently).
That made me wonder: If I had a Web cam on my computer facing outside the window, and it is not obvious that it is a camera (on an iMac it's impossible to see from more than a few feet away) and it captured such an arrest, could I be arrested for secretly taping the scene?
Edit: A good read, from the RCFP... http://www.rcfp.org/taping/
And if that is decidedly secret, then nobody should care as long as the unlawful audio is removed before distribution.
I use the term unlawful audio because only the personally identifying information should need to be censored/removed.
The article I referenced says that it varies by state, especially with regards to consent. Some states are single-party, some states require all party consent.
But if you're on the street in public, you'd think everything is fair game... especially if you're a public servant.
It's nice to see someone taking a stand and clearing it up (in one state at least).