My point is free speech isn't always free. It's regulated on so many levels.
Broadcastify Receives Cease and Desist from Terre Haute, IN City Attorney
- Thread starter blantonl
- Start date
- Status
My point is free speech isn't always free. It's regulated on so many levels.
And that is a problem but it is beyond the scope of this thread.
"I often wonder if municipalities could copyright their broadcasts like"
Generally? All of that IS copyrighted. Under the Berne Convention, which the US signed onto around 1976, all copyrights are automatically assigned to the creator from the moment of creation. However.
The US is fairly unique among nations in that all government copyrights have always been considered to be property of "We the People", so a government agency itself cannot copyright anything they create, and does not own the copyrights to anything they create. Those rights belong to the American people. Although, we tend to allow aliens to reproduce the materials as well.
Some major agencies have had to have that explained to them by the USAG because they just couldn't understand who the boss is.
And that pesky first amendment? Means anyone can shoot their mouth off, but they still can't yell "FIRE" in a theatre just for fun. And they can't cross other lines, like disclosing national security matters. Police action IN PROGRESS would count as one of those matters. You can shout about it--but you'll still be charged with "interfering with a police activity" and that's the end of that.
No, this is unfortunately simply legal blackmail, they know that Broadcastify can't afford to spend what it would cost to bring a defense in court. And they know they have no jurisdiction over Broadcastify, or else they'd have stated what it was. Their only proper course of action is to encrypt what they don't want made public. TFB if that makes eavesdropping over radios and phones impossible, that's their right, under all the laws from the FCC on down.
Legal blackmail, OTOH, needs to be smacked down. It has become a real problem in the US over the past 20-30 years, getting worse every year. Someplace with bigger bucks (like the Electronic Freedom Foundation or the ACLU) might be willing to take up a countersuit and make some good out of this.
Generally? All of that IS copyrighted. Under the Berne Convention, which the US signed onto around 1976, all copyrights are automatically assigned to the creator from the moment of creation. However.
The US is fairly unique among nations in that all government copyrights have always been considered to be property of "We the People", so a government agency itself cannot copyright anything they create, and does not own the copyrights to anything they create. Those rights belong to the American people. Although, we tend to allow aliens to reproduce the materials as well.
Some major agencies have had to have that explained to them by the USAG because they just couldn't understand who the boss is.
And that pesky first amendment? Means anyone can shoot their mouth off, but they still can't yell "FIRE" in a theatre just for fun. And they can't cross other lines, like disclosing national security matters. Police action IN PROGRESS would count as one of those matters. You can shout about it--but you'll still be charged with "interfering with a police activity" and that's the end of that.
No, this is unfortunately simply legal blackmail, they know that Broadcastify can't afford to spend what it would cost to bring a defense in court. And they know they have no jurisdiction over Broadcastify, or else they'd have stated what it was. Their only proper course of action is to encrypt what they don't want made public. TFB if that makes eavesdropping over radios and phones impossible, that's their right, under all the laws from the FCC on down.
Legal blackmail, OTOH, needs to be smacked down. It has become a real problem in the US over the past 20-30 years, getting worse every year. Someplace with bigger bucks (like the Electronic Freedom Foundation or the ACLU) might be willing to take up a countersuit and make some good out of this.
I don't believe that I was the one who originally brought it up but I could have. Regardless, discussing the First Amendment in regards to receiving government radio transmissions does not automatically open the field to an all encompassing dissertation on free speech. Again, it is too broad for this thread.
That trope has been debunked a long time ago. Yes you can.
As anyone who has been paying attention to the news should know, it depends on who you are. Some animals are more equal than others.
Check out "photography is not a crime" and Cop Block. I haven't done much this past year or so but I've spent plenty of time up in DUI checkpoints, right next to officers and at many other incidents (all the while openly armed, by the way). I guess that depends upon the state one lives in and how willing one is to be free. The most trouble I've ever had was in DC when we protested the shutdown of the monuments in 2013. I still wasn't arrested or even detained.
But, this is also all apples and oranges, off topic.
I think you're right and I'll bow out.
bill4long
Member
Where does the Constitution, or any case law based on it, grant citizens the right to listen to law enforcement radio dispatches? Hint: it doesn't exist.
Essentially, as clarified by case law, the First Amendment guarantees free political speech. Not all speech. Non-political speech is governed and limited in all sorts of ways. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the right to hear someone's speech unfettered, including government agencies.
Last edited:
I'm still confused as to how freedom to listen and freedom of speech are the same thing? How is freedom to listen covered under the first amendment? If it was there wouldn't be eavesdropping laws. Some states even have laws regarding audio recording a person without their consent. Granted a public safety radio system will be recorded by a dispatch center, the person is consenting to this recording by participating in a conversation with a dispatcher. They may not be consenting to being recorded by a 3rd party without direct involvement in the conversation at hand.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
bill4long
Member
It isn't.
Government cannot possess rights, only privileges. People working under the authority of government are operating under privilege during that moment. As government has no right to privacy, those operating under authority of government have no expectation of normal privacy while carrying out their functions. This is necessary for an open, honest government of a free people.
Also, reasonable expectation of privacy comes into play. When one transmits over an open airwave, one generally would not reasonably expect a high level of privacy.
Freedom of the press.
Again, I won't argue that at this time and place. I will leave you with the notion that Officers of the Court have made a complete mess of constitutional protections in this land. If one wants to point the finger at a major problem in the United States, look squarely at the attorneys.
bill4long
Member
False.
Government agencies are under no obligation to provide you with any information, written or verbal, unless provided by statute (such as FOIA), or you get a court order from a judge (for discovery in a law suit or are defending yourself from a criminal charge, etc.)
Last edited:
bill4long
Member
False.
Freedom of the press pertains to citizens having the right to publish, political speech in particular.
It has nothing to do with any right to listen to government agencies.
Is it your contention the government has a RIGHT to privacy?
bill4long
Member
Of course they do. States have the constitutional authority to create statutes governing how their agencies operate and to what degree of access you have to their property and activities. You have no explicit or implied right by the US Constitution, or any state constitution, to government property, papers, recordings, effects, transmissions, or anything similar, unless the state grants you that right, or unless you get a court order pursuant to a criminal or civil action. No state in the USA has granted rights for their citizens to have willy-nilly access to any of the aforementioned.
Constitutions cannot grant rights. What is the source of a right?
bill4long
Member
The US Constitution grants all sorts of rights to Congress and to the states, as agreed upon by the Constitutional convention. (Which was held in secret, by the way.) And one right that the Constitution grants is that the states have the right to make laws.
Are you one of those guys who thinks that you aren't required to have a drivers license if you want to drive a car?
Anyway, I've made my point. I suggest taking a course on Constitutional law.
Since you don't really know, the source of a right is inherent in living. That was once well understood.
I will leave you with the notion that Officers of the Court have made a complete mess of constitutional protections in this land. If one wants to point the finger at a major problem in the United States, look squarely at the attorneys.
"And wouldn't he disdain whatever honors, praises, and prizes were awarded there to the ones who guessed best which shadows followed which? Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? Wouldn't it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it's not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead them up, wouldn't they kill him?" - Plato
- Status
Similar threads
