I feel if you have a camera on your property with a view of public spaces they have a losing argument. I doubt none of that holds water constitutionally. This is first amendment protected. If you are filming a public space with no expectation of privacy the government has no constitutional authority to restrict you if you are retaining the data private and never sharing it.

So far the only legal area that matters is the government itself being regulated in how they use ALPR since they are the entity that can actually infringe upon constitutional rights.

▲

15155 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> if you are retaining the data private and never sharing it.

"Never sharing it?" What? Free speech is literally defined by the fact that you can distribute information. Publishing your video feed (a la news helicopters, etc.) is clearly a protected activity - possibly even more so than collecting the data to begin with.

▲

bitexploder 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, I agree, but I am saying there are virtually zero grounds to legislate the use case I provided. They try to weasel it on "privacy" grounds and "transparency" when you share the data, but yeah. I agree.

▲

RHSeeger 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Nearly every right is limited in some way "for the good of society". You can't take pictures of the entire contents of a book and publish it. You can't run into an airport and yell that you've got a bomb. We, as a society, put limits on what we allow people to do because doing so is better for society as a whole.

I expect there are plenty of cases where you can't publish your video feed.

▲

bitexploder 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

You are of course correct. There are always limits on speech. In this area, however, we have already decided how it works. You cannot regulate what private citizens record in public spaces with no expectation of privacy and you definitely cannot regulate what they do with that data.

▲

15155 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> You can't take pictures of the entire contents of a book and publish it.

> can't run into an airport and yell that you've got a bomb.

Right: now try and argue that a license plate intentionally designed for public visibility is somehow subject to the same restrictions. All 50 states have legislation requiring public display of these objects: what tailoring of the First Amendment would legally be consistent with past case law?

> I expect there are plenty of cases where you can't publish your video feed.

Legally these cases are few and far between, and none of these exceptions apply to the situation being discussed. You're welcome to try and cite a case or explain relevant case law - good luck.

Freedom of the press is extraordinarily broad and is one of the more difficult things to limit using criminal penalties.

	▲	IAmBroom 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> > You can't take pictures of the entire contents of a book and publish it. > Copyright is "mostly" civil law, not criminal. Does that matter? Seriously - doesn't the 1st Amendment also protect against the government raising civil complaints? I think the better point here is: Disney suing you for copyright violations is not a First-Amendment case, because Disney is not the US government - so this isn't a Free Speech issue at all.

▲

LocalH 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I fail to see how passively recording a space that you don't own is "first amendment protected". Passively recording a space isn't in and of itself speech.

	▲	15155 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I can photograph and publish whatever I am allowed to see in public (with very few exceptions - think Naval Air Station Key West), this has been affirmed and reaffirmed by countless courts. The best part about publishing? You have no right to question when, how, or if I am going to do it - that discretion is also free speech.
	▲	IAmBroom 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Reproducing information is within the legal limits of "speech and press". You don't have to have a physical, lead-type printing press to be protected by Freedom of the Press, and you don't have to physically vocalize to be protected by Freedom of Speech.

▲

IlikeKitties 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> If you are filming a public space with no expectation of privacy the government has no constitutional authority to restrict you if you are retaining the data private and never sharing it.

This a shitty argument from a time where mass surveillance wasn't possible. If you have "no expectation of privacy in public spaces" than Governments could force you to wear an ankle monitor and body camera at all times since you have "no expectation of privacy".

▲

bitexploder 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

You are mixing up the duties and rights a government has vs. the duties and rights citizens have. The one area I might start to agree is corporate personhood and giving corporations the same rights as a private citizen in this regard because their interests are very different from a private citizens. The whole point of the constitution is largely what the government can't do to its citizens. The goal is to protect citizens FROM its government by carving out our rights. These of course apply broadly, but I can't, for example, as a private citizen really violate your 4A rights very easily.

	▲	IlikeKitties 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> You are mixing up the duties and rights a government has vs. the duties and rights the governments have. Can you correct that typo? I've been thinking about what you mean for a while and I can't figure it out. edit: Thank you

▲

IAmBroom 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No, it's a great right.

You (personally) can't stop me from photographing you in public, Ms. Steisand.

And Freedom of Speech has no sensible connection to being forced to carry objects. Your argument also assumes no one ever goes into private houses, where 1A doesn't apply.