Stay updated with breaking news from K eric martin. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Photo (cc) 2010 by Thomas Hawk Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to Media Nation for just $5 a month. Click here for details. A federal appeals court has upheld the right to secretly record police officers in the performance of their public duties, but has declined to act similarly with respect to other government officials because they have a greater expectation of privacy. The ruling, by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, essentially strikes down the Massachusetts wiretap law, also known as Section 99, as it pertains to police officers. According to an analysis by Michael Lambert, a First Amendment lawyer with the Boston firm of Prince Lobel, “The decision means that Massachusetts journalists and citizens can, openly or secretly, record police discharging their duties in public without fear of criminal charges under the state’s wiretap law.” ....
Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. Necessary ....
Wed, 12/16/2020 - 10:23am A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that people have the right to surreptitiously record police officers at work in public spaces such as parks, agreeing with two local activists that the First Amendment takes precedence over a state law banning private recording in that circumstance. At the same time, however, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston rejected an argument to strike down the entire state law that bans secret recording, saying it raises vexatious issues related to the privacy of people with greater expectations of privacy than police officers out in public, basically everybody else. ....