These sort of publication bans are especially silly given the ease for people to get their news from publications around the world. U.S. media isn't subject to the kind of restraints on speech that come out of the U.K. and Canada and Australia, and routinely publish what courts in those countries say can't be published, much has TechDirt has done in this case.
Searches for information on this case will bring up articles from news sites around the world, most of whom don't give a flip about and aren't obligated to follow Canada's censorship law.
> I used to live in Chicago. It was always > gridlock in that city. I can't fathom how > it would even be possible to go the speed > limit, let alone exceed it
This is what always amazes me about the uniquitous high-speed police chases we have about once a week here in Los Angeles. I have no idea how these morons always manage to find the one set of freeways in L.A. that aren't crawling along at 5 MPH. Everywhere I drive, it's a mess, but some meth-head running from the cops always seems to be able to rocket along at 80 MPH or more for hours.
> Oregon has its issues, but not pumping your own > gas isn't one of them. The locals see it as a way > to create jobs for young and/or poor people. Sure, > we pay more for gas, but the benefits to society > of having less unemployment seem to be worth it.
Well, hell, with that rationale, imagine all the other jobs that could be created if we just forced people to let others do the most mundane tasks in our lives!
"I'm sorry, sir, but you can't carry your purchase out of the store. You have pay this kid to take it to your car for you so we can keep the local teens employed."
"Ma'am, we're going to have to ask you to stop watering/mowing your own lawn. You see, we have a lot of poor people here in town and they need a job, so you'll have to pay someone to tend to your yard for you."
I think it's hilarious how a site that's constantly calling for government transparency and criticizing government agencies for not releasing files and documents is now apparently upset that a government agency released a file because it found it advantageous to do so.
Apparently the government is only supposed to be transparent when doing so will get them in trouble.
Various state and local governments have done this with gas masks, also. They've made possessing and/or wearing a gas mask illegal because they started to get protesters showing up to demonstrations wearing them and the cops' tear gas had no effect on them.
The sum total of these kinds of laws is the government is basically saying to the citizens, "Not only do we have the right to fuck you up, but if we decide you need to be fucked up, it's illegal for you to do anything to prevent it."
It's beyond me that whichever judge is overseeing this mess hasn't pulled the government's lawyers into court and told them in absolutely plain and simple terms that if they don't manage to find and deliver the relevant documents to the court in a reasonable amount of time, someone important is going to find his ass in a jail cell until they are so delivered.
> Meanwhile, Ryan Reilly of the Huffington > Post reports...
I don't put much stock in anything this guy says. He's the guy who found some orange foamy earplugs on the ground and breathlessly tweeted out that they were rubber bullets.
And he's also the guy who goes to the site of the counter-protesters and starts taking photos of their vehicles and their license tags and posting them online as a way of intimidating people with whom he disagrees. Not exactly something one finds in the job description of "reporter". He's not really a reporter, he's an obviously biased activist who makes himself the story more often than not.
My question would be, do the officers have the ability to turn the cameras on and off?
Because if they do, then the bad cops will just shut them off before dispensing a little street justice. And if they don't, then there are issues that will come up regarding officer privacy and informants.
While it's true that a cop doesn't enjoy an expectation of privacy when out working a crime scene or other public performance of duty, he/she does have a privacy expectation at times during an 8-hour tour of duty. Meal breaks, personal conversations with partner and phone calls to family, bathroom breaks, etc. The public isn't entitled to eavesdrop on any of that.
Additionally, working informants is a key aspect of policing and way that a significant number of crimes are solved. If the cops can't turn off the cameras, no informant with half a brain will ever talk to a cop again knowing he's being recorded.
Seems like a Catch-22. Either way you go with the cameras, there's a downside.
> Secondly, your right to record ends at the > gate or the door.
What if there was a 5-story building across the street? Could the police tell everyone in the building they are not allowed to look down out of their windows at the parking lot across the street, or record anything they can see? Could they charge someone with trespassing for being in their *own home*, just because they were looking at something the police don't want them to look at?