Court strikes down limits on filming of police in Arizona
apnews.com
apnews.com
It's not improving though. Quite the opposite.
For the past two decades, individual rights in Western democracies have consistently been eroded, under both right- and left-wing governments. I cannot think of a single major change in any major Western country since the start of the century that I would call an improvement of individual rights.
Would gay marriage rights not fall under an improvement of individual rights here? If not, why?
That's a very important distinction to make, though I grant you that pretending this distinction doesn't exist has been the MO of politics and media for a while now.
At least we can discuss about it. But ability to make diolague shrinks due to overconsumption of naratives full of fear. That bothers me quite a bit.
We pretend to solving problems by creating ridiculous ammount of regulations and laws instead of removing those non functional.
I think you might refer to how political discourse in western democracies increasingly seems not appeal to reason and common ground, but to "feelings" including fear, but also disgust, love of tribe and similar.
It seems to be that way but I'm not sure it wasn't always. Maybe people who want rational discourse about policy should seek forums that does just that, and not look to be informed by campaign slogans and the mudwrestling that goes on in social media. And maybe that's how it always was.
I'm not sure.
What is difference than before is scale. So many people never consumed virtual information before. It makes perfect ground for one, centralised control over masses.
My point is I can decide to marry a man or a woman now and before I could only decide to marry women. Currently I despise the idea of marriage so I'm not doing either, but there's many things I have the freedom to do that I choose not to. I still like to have that freedom. It seems you were making some deeper point than me or you have a different idea of what makes "a group" (since you called abortion a group right even though it applies to every woman).
That framing of course is absurd because women in the USSR also had more chance of their brothers being disappeared, etc.
To rephrase the comment above slightly, the gain of rights for a particular group isn’t a replacement for a loss of universal rights. The loss of universal rights is always more serious because it leads to the darkest paths that a society can take.
Many western countries have not experienced repression in two or more generations and cultural memory is starting to fade.
I see gay marriage as a gain of rights for all, not for a particular group. I'm not gay, but I now have the right to marry a man for tax purposes, employer-provided benefits, or citizenship/immigration.
I don't think that's absurd? Both can be true at the same time, a government can stop discriminating you for one thing, while starting to repress you for another. Whether that's a net negative for any individual depends on circumstance and detail.
It's obvious if you reduce it to the absurd: e.g. if a government decides the abolish slavery (terrible discrimination for a specific group) while also disallowing chewing gum for everyone. Similarly you can construct examples for the inverse (a minor reduction of discrimination vs a great loss of freedom for everyone).
History is pretty clear in its opinion on the (lack of) merits of Stalinism, but I don't think you can construct a general principle in the phrasing you chose.
1. The Human Rights Act 1998: This Act incorporates into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. It effectively brings these rights closer to home, allowing individuals to seek redress for alleged breaches of these rights in the domestic courts rather than having to go to Strasbourg. This increases individual freedom by providing easier access to legal remedies.
2. The Freedom of Information Act 2000: This legislation enables the public to request information from public bodies. This contributes to the transparency of public bodies, supports the public's right to know, and increases democratic control.
3. The Equality Act 2010: This consolidates previous anti-discrimination laws into one Act, with the aim of ensuring equal treatment for all, regardless of characteristics such as race, sex, disability, etc. This enhances individual freedom by providing protection against discrimination and promoting equality.
4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: This law contains a variety of measures intended to protect civil liberties and roll back state intrusion. It restricts the retention of DNA and fingerprints by the police and regulates the use of surveillance powers, enhancing individual privacy.
5. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013: This Act legalised same-sex marriage in England and Wales, thereby increasing the freedom of individuals to marry regardless of their sexual orientation. This represents a significant expansion of rights for the LGBTQ+ community.
6. The Children and Families Act 2014: This Act includes provisions that give parents and young people greater control over support for children with special educational needs. This enhances the rights and freedoms of children with special educational needs and their parents.
7. The Modern Slavery Act 2015: This Act aimed to increase the penalties and powers to prevent modern slavery. By consolidating slavery and trafficking offences, it gives more protection to individuals who might be victims of such practices.
8. The Mental Health (Discrimination) Act 2013: This law removes legislative barriers to people with mental health conditions serving in certain public roles (like MPs, jurors, or company directors). This increases individual freedom by reducing discrimination against people with mental health conditions.
9. Data Protection Act 2018: This legislation incorporated the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) into UK law, giving individuals greater control over their personal data. It increased individual freedom by giving people rights such as the right to access their personal data, the right to correct inaccurate data, and the right to have data deleted in certain circumstances.
In practice, individual privacy has been diminished to a degree that calling the GDPR an improvement is almost cynical. The GDPR only exists because the right to privacy means almost nothing in today's world.
Not to mention that the GDPR is so routinely violated that most "rights" it appears to grant are worthless in reality.
Saying it's ineffective does not mean it didn't change the reality of individual rights being eroded on the data privacy sphere... I've worked in multiple projects to comply with GDPR, there is a much higher degree of care with PII after GDPR than before, so it is a step in the right direction.
I'm not the type to wait for a perfect solution to arrive, GDPR has made changes in real life, we need to keep pushing what it has brought forth instead of just complaining it's ineffective, it has value on its own and more can be done.
> Prominent law enforcement officials refused to defend the law, including former Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich and both the prosecutor and sheriff’s office in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix.
Credit where it's due, even the police themselves wanted nothing to do with this awful bill. And studies have shown that video evidence overwhelmingly exonerates police more often than it implicates them. Transparency is a win for everyone.
Which studies?
In a world where police have the ability to disable their cameras is this surprising?
Arizona already has such a broad law that SCOTUS have repeatedly ruled in favor:
AZ ST § 13-2402. Obstructing governmental operations
1. The performance of a governmental function by a public servant acting under color of his official authority; or
2. The enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer acting under color of his official authority.
B. This section does not apply to the obstruction, impairment or hinderance of the making of an arrest.
C. Obstructing governmental operations is a class 1 misdemeanor.
They just worship the uniform. That's kinda the difference between a conservative and a fascist (or a liberal and a communist).
Fuck authority that we appointed giving themselves extra self-appointed permissions.
I think I can say this, whether I'm right wing or left wing, and intelligent people will agree.
Um, pick one, yeah?
Gadsden was a general in the Continental Army, so it's not like they were a complete anarchist.
Unless someone's a complete anarchist, they understand that you need the rule of law and order to protect the civil liberties they hold dear.
The type of person that has a thin blue line sticker probably does not view the police as the primary threat to their civil liberties
I'm not a fan of flags anyway and I look down on people who care about them.
If you think they sum up a political viewpoint, you're wrong, and it's still a sad commentary on the superficial nature of the debate we've been reduced to.
[edit] it took me three reads of your comment to realize you were basically backing what I was saying. I'm an idiot, and I'm drunk at the moment. But yeah.
And also very much agreed on how the “alt” flags just defile the one that we’re supposed to be united under.
Literally can't fly an American flag anywhere in my state without triggering a bad reaction somehow.
My family are all immigrants and extremely proud of our country and thankful for what America provided for us. Also very liberal. It's difficult to explain this to anyone who loves or hates America who isn't from an immigrant background.
I wouldn't end any opinions like this if you want to be taken seriously.
I wish I'd never visit US.
The modern Republican party of small government and low taxes is long gone. in its stead is basically a zombie that shambles from culture war to culture war in a desperate bid to remain relevant to anyone who still thinks cutting a billionaires taxes makes any sense in 2023. It advances dead cat legislation and reactionary edicts against the very first amendment it insists it champions.
Reagan wasn't "small government" either, by the way. He expanded the government faster than any other POTUS in history outside of world wars. His economic policies also gave both parties the green light to spend like it's going out of style, although Republicans are notably bad when it comes to actually making economic sense with their taxes versus their expenditures.
In a saner Republican Party he would have been a good Senator or even Presidential nominee. Unfortunately, that isn’t the age we live in.
I'm wondering if you've actually paid attention to his record. Most of it is expanding the role and power of government.
An amorphous blob. A winning strategy against an opponent who cedes the centre.
Very, very few even question capitalism, let alone call for its replacement.
I’m just going to applaud your literary sense here for a sec. Beautifully written and explained thought about this completely new and troubling phenomenon.
Mostly troubling because it does seem to be working insofar as the zombie won’t goddamn die.
> ... It advances dead cat legislation and reactionary edicts...
The legislative circus is a sideshow to the main event, which is fundraising from a small core of donors (which is a perversion of 1A, but we digress...).
A better way to think of the Republican party platform is "anti-reactionary". This descriptor makes more sense for how they seemingly jump from topic to topic. Which, credit where it is do, is probably fine in the long run in a functional political system where they can act as ballast against excesses.
But as a weirdness of our time, foreign and economic policy between the two parties are pretty largely aligned so if you represent a fluid anti-reactionary platform, the only thing of value you can provide are culture war issues.
The core mission of the movement is still anarcho capitalism.
This seems entirely reasonable. I'm not sure what you'd capture closer than 8 feet that you would not from farther away.
It could be appealed, but from the article it sounds like there isn't much popular support for the law, and the governor had a hard time finding someone to litigate in support
- most police have body cams now, so presumably, their voices and actions are already being recorded
- citizens interacting with police don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so they cannot opt out of being recorded
So it seems fine that citizens can create their own copy of the incident that's already being recorded.
To flip it on it's head, I can't think of a reasonable, let alone constitutional, argument for "I can record you but you cannot record me"
Of course, this leaves out the case where they don't have body cams/aren't recording. In that instance, though, we already have a pretty strong precedent that people cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. That's why we can take selfies, vlog, talk on the phone, etc regardless if people are in the background. Not to mention straight up record whatever is around - dashcams, security cameras, etc.
These notoriously malfunction during abuse.
> And on private property, an officer who decides that someone is interfering or that the area is unsafe could have ordered the person to stop filming even if the recording was being made with the owner’s permission.
Which seems to imply that if a police officer breaks into your house, they can order you to stop filming them at their sole discretion.
This is outlined in Article 2, which defines the scope of the GDPR. Specifically, Article 2(2)(c) states:
"This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity"
Are you under the impression that long shots show as much as close in shots?
You will also be within 8 feet of a cop as a passenger during any traffic stop.
IIRC, the law (bad as it was) did have an exception for people in the vehicle during traffic stops.