Federal Court Rules Citizens Have No Right to Film Politicians or Police in Public

At that level, Senior Judge Nanette Laughery wrote an opinion in support of Columbia Police officers. She maintained:

Police officers indeed had probable cause to arrest Akins each time, and — again, contrary to previous rulings from six circuit courts —that “he has no constitutional right to videotape any public proceeding he wishes to.”

Her ruling upholds the District Court decision that states citizens do not have the right to film public officials in public.

Laughrey’s ruling goes against precedence established by the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, which decided the Constitution guarantees the right to film public officials in public settings, as long as recording does not interfere.”

Laughery was appointed to the District Court in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

In a similar case in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Thomas Ambro ruled conclusively that the First Amendment protects the public’s “right of access to information about their officials’ public activities.”

Ambro noted that the Constitution protects the public from limiting the “stock of information” from which the public can draw.

While police officers in general may be apprehensive about the public filming their activities, free speech advocates argue that citizen videos may capture different angles that in fact could benefit police in the event of disputed claims made against them regarding inappropriate behavior.

Because other federal Circuit Courts have upheld the right to film, the outlier ruling in the Eighth Circuit may ultimately force Akins to take the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court so that the right to film could be decided once and for all.

Akins is appealing the ruling again to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but should it affirm its most recent ruling, the Supreme Court represents the last chance to reverse this assault on free speech.

Source: The Free Thought Project