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