Texas Representative Proposes Bill Making Filming the Police Illegal

[Zaac]

Texas Representative Proposes Bill to Make Filming the Police Illegal for Everyone But MSM

Austin, Texas – On Tuesday, a bill was filed by Texas Representative Jason Villalba (R-Dallas), HB 2918, which would turn private citizens who film police into criminals.

The bill attempts to usurp citizens of the ability to hold law enforcement accountable for their actions by negating people’s ability to create an accurate and impartial record of police interactions.

If passed, the bill would amend the current “INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES” statute (Sec. 38.15), to include language only allow filming of police (within 25ft) by “news media.”

The term “news media” is then defined as such:

(A) a radio or television station that holds a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission;

(B) a newspaper that is qualified under Section 2051.044, Government Code, to publish legal notices or is a free newspaper of general circulation and that is published at least once a week and available and of interest to the general public in connection with the dissemination of news or public affairs; or

(C) a magazine that appears at a regular interval, that contains stories, articles, and essays by various writers, and that is available and of interest to the general public in connection with the dissemination of news or public affairs.

Notice that private citizens, and internet based sites are not listed as qualifying as “news media,” thus allowing the marginalization of anyone that is not part of the old corporate media structure. This also means that a citizen wouldn’t be able to record their own interaction with an officer.

The law is intentionally structured in this manner as a means of controlling the narrative of police-involved incidents. Traditional news outlets often rely almost solely on police talking points when running a story involving the police. It’s extremely rare for them to allow the victim’s version of events to be part of the narrative, especially when conflicting with that of the police.

...

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/te...s-filming-police-illegal/#yZCwtiiiKHoUKKBH.99

Just crazy for obvious reasons.

 

[InTheLight]

Here we have a Republican in favor of big government intrusion into our lives. I guess when it fits their agenda they're all for it.

The logical extension of this is to make video features of cell phones illegal.

 

[matt wade]

Wonder how much Jason Villalba gets from the police unions.

 

[PreachTony]

 

[Crabtownboy]

And if this were law in SC the policeman would have gotten away with murder. Great law, huh?

 

[preachinjesus]

Idiocracy in motion there folks.

If the SC video proves anything, in light of the police report that was submitted, we need video accountability for police.

 

[Use of Time]

The timing couldn't have been worse. :laugh: God bless Texas.

 

[just-want-peace]

The timing couldn't have been worse. :laugh: God bless Texas.

Unless (don't know, just covering bases), there was something just prior that gave justification for the action.

It does seem interesting that only when police respond do the videos start; sorta like taking quotes out of context.

And before you bleeding hearts start yowling, all I'm saying is what SHOULD have been in so many other cases - WAIT TILL ALL THE FACTS ARE IN before you start crucifying; where ever they lead - FAIR ENOUGH??????

 

[Zaac]

Unless (don't know, just covering bases), there was something just prior that gave justification for the action.

It does seem interesting that only when police respond do the videos start; sorta like taking quotes out of context.

If every time the police showed up in your community and someone ends up dead or abused, you'd probably start filming the second police showed up too.

And before you bleeding hearts start yowling, all I'm saying is what SHOULD have been in so many other cases - WAIT TILL ALL THE FACTS ARE IN before you start crucifying; where ever they lead - FAIR ENOUGH??????

The facts are in. He shot a man in the back several times who wasn't posing any danger to him or anyone else. The law is very clear on when such deadly force can be used.

And then, apparently, they lied in their reports about how things happened. And he also attempted to change the crime scene by moving the taser.

He's locked up and up for murder just as he should be.

 

[InTheLight]

Unless (don't know, just covering bases), there was something just prior that gave justification for the action.

What could possibly have happened to write a law making it illegal to use a camera in open (public) spaces?

 

[matt wade]

What could possibly have happened to write a law making it illegal to use a camera in open (public) spaces?

Money changing hands.

 

[Use of Time]

What could possibly have happened to write a law making it illegal to use a camera in open (public) spaces?

I think he is conflating your thread with the officer shooting the unarmed black man thread. It's the only explanation this "bleeding heart" liberal can think of. It's hard to think clearly when his signature is yelling at me.

 

[Zaac]

I think he is conflating your thread with the officer shooting the unarmed black man thread. It's the only explanation this "bleeding heart" liberal can think of. It's hard to think clearly when his signature is yelling at me.

I have his post on IGNORE because of that. :laugh: I still read his posts. But I can't stand scrolling through the screen and then that large font yelling at my eyes in every one of his posts.

Using IGNORE, I only have to see it when I open his posts to read them.

 

[Don]

Bad law. Shouldn't happen.

 

[targus]

No doubt I will take flak for this...

The prohibition is "within 25 feet".

If you are not the person being questioned, detained or arrested it does not seem unreasonable that you should stay back 25 feet so as not to interfere with a police officer in the performance of his duties.

 

[matt wade]

No doubt I will take flak for this...

The prohibition is "within 25 feet".

If you are not the person being questioned, detained or arrested it does not seem unreasonable that you should stay back 25 feet so as not to interfere with a police officer in the performance of his duties.

No flack from me. Thanks for letting us know about this provision. I agree that some distance seems reasonable, but 25 feet seems excessive. I think a better number would be more around 10 feet. I'm thinking about situations in downtown areas with sidewalks 25 feet is probably pretty far away.

 

[carpro]

Just crazy for obvious reasons.

It won 't pass.

Probably won't even make it out of committee.