Court favors recording cops

Just a couple of states (Mass., Illinois, Maryland, I think) try to criminalize recording police. But the tide of opinion is sharply against those states. Prosecutions have mostly lost in the courts, and here is the latest:

In Cook County today Judge Stanley J. Sacks declared Illinois' eavesdropping law — which is one of the toughest in the nation — unconstitutional in his ruling in the case of Christopher Drew, who was charged with the felony crime in 2009.

The eavesdropping law prohibits citizens from making audio or visual recordings of others without every recorded person's explicit consent. Sixty-year-old artist Drew audio-recorded his interaction with a police officer who was arresting him for selling art patches at the side of the road. A police officer found the tape recorder and Drew found himself with a Class 1 felony charge, which carries up to 15 years in prison. “That's one step below attempted murder,” Drew said in a January interview with the New York Times.

The issue also came up in the recent Zombie Muhammed case:

Perce said [Judge Mark] Martin gave him permission to record the proceedings, although Perce was also warned that releasing the audio could result in him being charged with contempt of court.

The judge wanted to cover up his foolish speech about free speech being a privilege. Govt officials are also trying to suppress animal videos. AP
reports:

Iowa became the first state Friday to make it a crime to surreptitiously get into a farming operation to record video of animal abuse.

We would all be better off if judges, CPS agents, cops, and family court shrinks were always video-recorded when performing their official duties. My guess is that psychologists like Kenneth B. Perlmutter would lose 80% of his income because everyone would see what an incompetent crook he is. He was extremely cruel to my kids, and no one would want their kids anywhere near him if they knew what he did to my kids.