Original link

A police union is asking a judge to require the Las Vegas Review-Journal to take down a video posted with a story about Henderson jail overtime and corrections officer failures, raising concerns about constitutional press freedom. …

Here’s the video.

The newspaper reported that taxpayers have paid millions of dollars to run the city’s understaffed detention center and that corrections officers sometimes made mistakes and violated policy, records show. The exclusive jail surveillance footage and photos were posted with the story.

The Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers union, on behalf of Henderson officers, filed the complaint Wednesday, claiming that the Review-Journal broke a state law that says images of officers in possession of a law enforcement agency are confidential.

The lawsuit comes days after the union sent the Review-Journal and city officials a letter demanding the newspaper remove the pictures and videos of officers attached to the story. The letter, written by executive director Andrew Regenbaum, also demanded the city open a criminal investigation into the source of the video. …

  • IamRoot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The law, as written, makes no such distinction.

    • FlowVoid@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It does. Possession is well defined. It means what you have in your hands. It does not extend to copies in other hands.

      The law applies to images in police possession, it says nothing about copies of those images that are not in their possession.

      • IamRoot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But the copies are in their hands and therefore in their possession.

        • FlowVoid@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In this case, not every copy is in their possession. The law does not affect the copies that are not in police possession. Like the ones possessed by the newspaper.

          • IamRoot
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok. I see your distinction but that doesn’t make it ok. I am not a lawyer, but I do think that plain language is important.

            I still say this law is unconstitutional as written

            Also

            • Doug Holland@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              My compliments to both of you for making it through eight rounds without ever a flood of insults. Wrong or right, that’s impressive. :)