31
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

"We don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ,” the House speaker said. His office later noted that DOJ already has the raw footage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

We don't leave it up to a religious fascist like Mike Johnson to chose who does or doesn't have rights. If a proper investigative body wants help identifying individuals, they can go through the proper procedures to release those images to ask the public for help identifying them. Which includes facing proper costs and consequences if any individuals are inappropriately identified by those efforts.

You're doing what the conservative SCOTUS justices always do when deleting our civil rights -- presuming the crime happened exactly as you believe it did then listing how bad it is in order to justify your conclusion that everyone involved should be drawn and quartered. It's an inversion of due process. Due process happens first, removal of rights second. If you have to remove rights first in order to have due process, there was no due process.

If you think it's a good point in general but don't agree in this case, I think you need to think about it a lot longer. Protecting rights is hard and sometimes requires letting some bad guys enjoy undue freedom. Privacy rights are under all-out assault right now and won't exist soon enough unless we follow rigorous, real principles around them.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

I respect your position on this. I'm not clamoring for them to release the footage, censored or not. What is the difference between a public space and a private one, though? If I go to a concert and they record footage and later release it with my face in it, has my privacy been violated? Did I have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Is it different because the government recorded it in this case? Are your rights being removed by the government releasing footage of a "protest" or otherwise? I'm not sure I buy that any rights are being infringed here. I also don't think I share much in common with SCOTUS. Let's say the FBI released the uncensored footage asking for the public's help in identifying potential criminals -- is that different because it's done attempting to solve a crime?

Sorry for the litany of question marks, just curious!

[-] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If I go to a concert and they record footage and later release it with my face in it, has my privacy been violated?

Yes, they need to get you to sign a release. Disseminating your images, ESPECIALLY for commercial purposes, without your express consent violates your rights.

Let’s say the FBI released the uncensored footage asking for the public’s help in identifying potential criminals – is that different because it’s done attempting to solve a crime?

It would be different if they followed due process -- that is, they followed relevant protocols (such as getting a warrant). Whether the current state of law adequately requires law enforcement agencies to go through this process is a separate but also very important discussion.

this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
31 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

2 readers
28 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 1 year ago