Leaderboard

Arizona House Legislature Passes Unconstitutional Bill... Arizona House Legislature approve bill to restrict "who can film police officers" and "when and where." (ref. 1) The people who took video of police killing George Floyd and Eric Garner would have faced criminal charges in Arizona under legislation that passed approval in the Arizona state House of Representatives with only partisan support. A bill proposed would make it "unlawful for someone to film police from up to 15 feet away" while officers are engaged in "law enforcement activity." Constitutional experts and Civil Rights advocates say the proposed law would be blatantly unconstitutional. Arizona House Bill 2319 says that "anyone who police order to stop filming" but continues to do so would "face a class 3 misdemeanor and up to 30 days in jail." The bill passed out of the Arizona House of Representatives on a 31-28 vote, with partisan legislature supporting it and other partisan legislature in opposition. An amendment added by the House Appropriations Committee "allows people to film their own interactions with police", as long as they are "not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test." The amendment also "allows passengers in a vehicle to film" as long as they do not "interfere" with "lawful police actions." The amendment also "limits what could not be filmed from closer than 15 feet": questioning a "suspicious person", conducting an arrest, issuing a "summons" or "enforcing the law," and handling an "emotionally disturbed" or "disorderly person" who is exhibiting "abnormal behavior". Filming of police has played an integral role in helping journalists and researchers learn the breadth of how law enforcement use "cover charges" to justify the use of excessive force. The term is often used by defense attorneys to describe the charges used by police to cover up bad behavior or explain away the use of excessive force. In Chicago, it was found that two out of every three times the Chicago Police Department used force since 2004, they arrested the person on one of these types of charges. And a 2021 ProPublica investigation found in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, seventy-three percent (73%) of the time someone was arrested on a "cover charge" alone, they were Black Ethnicity. (ref. 2) The unconstitutional bill now goes to the Arizona Senate for a divided partisan vote. --- A Federalist Paper: Credo id quoda video. "I believe that what we see." A Constitutionalist Response: The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the Constitution, AS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. No state can make a higher law and if it tried no judge could enforce any such law. That law would become a legal fiction, as if it never existed. "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law." "void ab initio" - Marbury v. Madison, (5 US 137) "Where Rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, (384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603) "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no Rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." - Norton v. Shelby County, (118 U.S. 425 p. 442) The Supreme Court declined to establish that the "press" had Rights which the average citizen did not. ALL U.S. citizens have the same Right of access to information that the "press" has. - Smith v. City of Cumming 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000), Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) A prior restraint is an official government restriction of free speech, journalism and press prior to publication. Prior restraints are viewed by the United States Supreme Court as "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights" - Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (ref. 4) "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking [Oath] to support it." - Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958) "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime"... "a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law." - Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284 (1963), Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968), Palmer v. City of Euclid, 402 U.S. 544 (1971), Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1973) "No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it." - Murdock v. Pennsylvania, (319 US 105) "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the Right with impunity." - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 "Changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at their computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status." - Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F. 3d 78 - Court of Appeals, (1st Cir. 2011) The majority Federal Electoral College districts within the United States Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that there is a First Amendment Right to record police activity in public. Turner v. Driver, No. 16-10312 (5th Cir. 2017), Fields v. City of Philadelphia, No. 16-1650 (3d Cir. 2017), Garcia v. Montgomery Cty., Maryland, 145 F. Supp. 3d 492, 508 (4th Cir. 2015), Ramos v. Flowers, Docket No. A-4910-10T3 (N.J. App. Div. Sept. 21, 2012), ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012), Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F. 3d 78 - Court of Appeals, (1st Cir. 2011), Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000), Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F. Supp. 2d 534 (3rd Cir. 2005), Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) First Circuit (with jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island): see Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011) ("[A] citizen's Right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment."); Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1999) (police lacked authority to prohibit citizen from recording commissioners in town hall "because [the citizen's] activities were peaceful, not performed in derogation of any law, and done in the exercise of his First Amendment Rights[.]"). Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) ("[a] traffic stop, no matter the additional circumstances, is inescapably a police duty carried out in public. Hence, a traffic stop does not extinguish an individual’s Right to film.") Third Circuit (with jurisdiction over Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania): see Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F. Supp. 2d 534 (E.D. Pa. 2005) ("As we explained above, the activity of Robinson in videotaping the defendants on October 23, 2002, was constitutionally protected speech. Robinson was filming the troopers while on private property with authorization from the landowner. He was 20 to 30 feet from them and at no time did he interfere with the carrying out of the troopers' duties, which were being conducted on or near a public highway.") Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197, 212 n.14 (3d Cir. 2005) ("videotaping or photographing the police in the performance of their duties on public property may be a protected activity.") "it is indisputable that all officers in the Philadelphia Police Department were put on actual notice that they were required to uphold the First Amendment Right to make recordings of police activity. From a practical perspective, the police officers had no ground to claim ambiguity about the boundaries of the citizens’ constitutional Right here." - Fields v. City of Philadelphia, No. 16-1650 (3d Cir. 2017) Fourth Circuit (with jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia): see Garcia v. Montgomery Cty., Maryland, 145 F. Supp. 3d 492, 508 (D. Maryland Nov. 2, 2015) (The "Right to record public police activities... if done peacefully and without interfering with the performance of police duties, is protected by the First Amendment.") Fifth Circuit (with jurisdiction over Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas): see Turner v. Driver, No. 16-10312 (5th Cir. 2017) ("a First Amendment Right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.” The majority derives this general Right to film the police from “First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent.") Seventh Circuit (with jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin): see ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) ("The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment's guarantee of speech and press Rights as a corollary of the Right to disseminate the resulting recording."). Ninth Circuit (with jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington): see Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) (assuming a First Amendment Right to record the police); see also Adkins v. Limtiaco, No. 11-17543, 2013 WL 4046720 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013) (recognizing First Amendment Right to photograph police, citing Fordyce). Hawaii v. Russo (2017) ("there is a constitutional Right of the public to film the official activities of police officers in a public place.") Eleventh Circuit (with jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida and Georgia): see Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) ("The First Amendment protects the Right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a Right to record matters of public interest."). The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey likewise recognized the existence of such a Right in Ramos v. Flowers, Docket No. A-4910-10T3 (N.J. App. Div. Sept. 21, 2012), relying heavily on the First Circuit's reasoning in the Glik v. Cunniffe, (2011), case law. The United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, issued recommendations on May 14th, 2012, (DJ 207-35-10 section 2 A), that all police departments "affirmatively set forth the First Amendment Right to record police activity." The United States Department of Justice has openly stated its position that the First Amendment protects all U.S. citizens who record the activities of the police in public, and has intervened in at least one Civil Rights lawsuit against police officers to support that First Amendment Right. See Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Dep't, No. 1:11-cv-02888-BEL (D. Md. Statement of Interest filed January 10, 2012) "Constitutional Rights would be of little value if they could be indirectly denied." - Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 155 (1966), Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649.644, (1944) "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights." - Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) "Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a crime (filming police in public is a constitutionally protected activity and is not a crime), the detention is a false arrest and false imprisonment." Damages Awarded: Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 241 F2d. 336 (11th Cir 1984) "[Police] officers of the court have no [Qualified] immunity, when violating a Constitutional Right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law!" - Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622, Williamson v. Mills, 11th Cir., 1995, Brookfield Construction Co. v. Stewart, (1964) "Qualified immunity defense fails if the public [police] officer violates clearly established Rights, because a reasonably competent official should know the law governing his conduct." - Jones v. Counce, 7-F3d-1359-8th Cir (1993), Benitez v. Wolff, 985-F3d 662 2nd Cir (1993) When an illegal arrest is made the [police] officers involved waive their [Qualified] immunity and are liable for damages done to the one arrested. (Title 18 Code 1911) - violations of oath of office. Quern vs. Jordan 440, U.S. 332, 345 (1979) If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any Right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. (18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against Constitutional Rights) Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any Rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. (18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of Rights under color of law) Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any Rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. (42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of Rights) A journalist is defined as "Someone who engages in journalism." - Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2022) Journalism is defined as "The collection and editing of news for presentation through writing or the media; the public press." - Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2022) "The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their Right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." - James Madison "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." - Thomas Jefferson (1786) "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation, would first subdue free speech." - Benjamin Franklin In November 2018, the Bureau of Justice Statistics published a report on the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement agencies in the United States in 2016: Only forty-seven percent (47%) of general-purpose law enforcement agencies had acquired body-worn cameras, and for large police departments, that number is only eighty percent (80%). (ref. 3) "The record in this case includes a 'videotape' capturing the events in question." "...the 'record' blatantly contradicts the [subject's] version of events so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a summary judgment motion." - United States Supreme Court - Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) Credo id quoda video. "I believe that what we see." Any discussions and/or peer reviews about this specific topic thread? Reference: House Bill 2319 - anyone who police order to stop filming but continues to do so would face a class 3 misdemeanor and up to 30 days in jail: (ref. 1) https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319P.pdf Arizona Mirror - House Republicans approve bill to restrict who can film cops and when and where: (ref. 2) https://www.azmirror.com/2022/02/23/house-republicans-approve-bill-to-restrict-who-can-film-cops-and-when/ United States National Institute For Justice - Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement: (ref. 3) https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/research-body-worn-cameras-and-law-enforcement Wikipedia - Prior restraint: (ref. 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

You are all wrong. I thought it was common knowledge that the answer is 42 and am disappointed in you all.

What a lovely metaphor! 🙂 (I don't know what is happening but every time I try to upvote your post it shows up as a nasty red down vote. Well, here's a verbal +1. 😄)

If torture’s not right, then this thread should’ve been closed or left to die long ago! /rimshot

All liquids conform to the shape of their container, but I doubt many people would agree that it means that mercury and water are basically the same.

Have to admit, there is something kinda nihilistic about it. Makes me think of that (possibly apocryphal) American major in Vietnam who was quoted as saying "We had to destroy the village to save it." Great teeshirt, btw.

Yes, this formula is correct. However, the equation (2) is not. Take for example r=2 objects and n=2 cells. There is only 1 way to distribute them with no empty cells, i.e. 1+1. But the equation (2) gives 2. This would be so if, for example, the objects were distinguishable.

No. Superluminal speeds are inconsistent with causality: there are situations where you can get a response to a signal before you send the signal. Depending on what you mean by parallel dimensions, they are science fiction or an interpretation of QM. Not actually science itself.

If you really think you have free will, you obviously haven’t been owned by a cat 🐈

So, my neurons, my action potentials, my transmitter concentrations, my blood pressure, etc. made me to decide what I've decided. This is correct. On the other hand, my neurons, my action potentials, my transmitter concentrations, my blood pressure, etc. taken all together IS me. Thus, it is me that made me to decide what I've decided. Isn't this a free will?

To live and be life. What else is it supposed to do? I certainly can't be a rock!

I don't think that will be necessary, thank you.

No it isn't. Well you've yet to convince me it does not require that. Not something I believe. Therefore I care. As do a great many others. If you don't, then why are you commenting? Where? I'm sorry you've misunderstood, but I never claimed that. Moral philosophers observed that these are the foundations. Which you're now contradicting yourself on. You yourself said they were the foundations; now you're pointlessly bickering about whether or not the chicken or the egg came first. Or should we disqualify Einsteins theory of relativity because it came so late into human history too? If you want; you can try to maintain I meant something I never said, all because you misunderstood something somewhere, but I probably won't respond to that anymore because I'm not so weak minded that I'm not aware of exactly what I meant, and I picked my words carefully. If there is something about my answers you don't understand, ask clarifying questions. I won't mind. You can reject my words off hand and continue your knee jerk, but it says more about your intellectual rigidity than it does about anything I've said. Prove me wrong and maybe take a little bit more time reflecting on what I've said so far, before you respond next. Count to ten if it helps. 😆

Class is implied by use off the word rich. I shouldn't have to explain that. To me it just seems like you're making an argument about semantics here. If the word choice bothers you that much, then assume I meant middle to upper class. Who do you know that can afford to go to private schools that is not middle/upper class? Assuming it's a school not run by a religious organization. As far as I'm aware, nobody in my area growing up got into a private school unless it was a school specifically for disabled children. My high-school was supposed to get a new building (because the current one is literally sinking into a brae) over a decade ago. The land developers sat on that land for 6 years until they were no-longer contractually obligated to build it and they gentrified the area instead and forced a lot of good working class people out. Not particularly relevant to this discussion I guess but maybe telling you it will help you understand why I believe I am just trying to speak what seems to be the truth to me, in good faith. You really need to read both of the links I sent you, thoroughly. You asked for them, so you need to at least respect them enough to reflect on them and read them carefully. I didn't write them, so if you want to counter the claims made in them, you'll need to find evidence in support of whatever your counter claims are. This is a two way street. You are not my peer, my boss, my professor or my parent. You're a fallible human being capable of being rude and callous, as am I. All I know of you, is how you behave toward me. I'm a fuckin open book. I don't know what any of your intentions are, but have you considered that how you are choosing to communicate with me is to blame for these misunderstandings wherein you keep making me feel like you just don't like me and are mostly antagonistic toward me? I get it, you're one of those people who believe brutal honesty is the best policy, but you also strike me as the type that focuses more on the brutality than the honesty. Compassionate honesty, now that is the diplomatic way to do it. I'm trying to work on that myself. I'm genuinely trying to be kinder and work on my temper. I really do want to understand you better, because I don't want nor like being upset with you. Am I just not getting your style of communication? What's going on? Well it's not outside the realm of mine. Maybe you have anosmia? Are you actually going to read the study? Or just the parts you think will prove me wrong? (when they don't) What is it that motivates you to debate this with me by the way? What do you want from this dialogue? What is your stake in this discussion? Do you stand to gain from a fairer and more equitable world or would it mean you have to share more?

Right now there is more freedom of speech in Russia concerning the Ukraine than has ever existed about most things here in the U.S. For just about everything you think you "know" about anything, just the opposite is probably the case. In this regard, the U.S. is worse than North Korea. But don't take my word for it on the North Korea topic. Take the word of an expert on the matter. www.foxnews.com › us › north-korean-defector-ivyNorth Korean defector says 'even North Korea was not this ... It would appear that I'm not allowed to say anything about the Ukrainian war around here without getting the troll treatment. So I figure, what the hell. I may as well tell you the truth on the matter and go out with a bang. The Ukrainian people have suffered a long and bloody relationship with Russia. That is why the person I will show you a picture of is widely admired there. Because contrary to what you've been brainwashed to believe, he wasn't an invader to the Ukrainians. He was a saviour! To the brainwashed As I said, the Ukrainian people have suffered greatly in the past at the hands of the Russians. Because of what you have been brainwashed to believe, some of that blood is on your hands. You claim to support the Ukrainian people? What a laugh!!! You are enslaved by and support those at who's hands they have suffered. Here is a meme that tells the real history and the reason for it. It is interesting that the current president of the Ukraine is also Jewish. As far as I know, contrary to this meme, Lenin was only part jewish. But the Bolshevik's were indeed mostly if not completely made up of jews. I have a picture of some of them. One of them was a jew named Genrikh Yagoda. He was the head of the NKVD and is said to have personally orchestrated the untimely deaths of at least 10 million people. I will show you a meme of him and what he said. I looked it up myself. He actually did say that. Here is something else to desuds your brainwashed minds. It is a statement by a Nobel Laureate named Alexandyr Solzhenitsyn. Now sometimes winning the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than a popularity contest. But Alexandyr Solzhenitsyn was an actual intellectual. He was a Russian Historian and novelist. Still having trouble believing your own eyes? That Stockholm Syndrome thing sure is a bitch, isn't it. You would probably flip out if I was allowed to prove to you that the holocaust was a hoax. The Russians were indeed the actual bad guys. And this person knew it. So if you have any doubt in your mind as to why the Ukrainians are so fiercely opposing the better equipped Russian forces, you now have your answer. I support them. You should to. The first step is in understanding them. And understanding their history is a big part of that.