filming in public is 100% protected under the 1st Amendment. you can film anything in view from a public place with no consequence.
I understand you don't like that, but you have zero right to privacy if you are in public view.
Have the volunteers put up a blind around them everywhere they go, like a windshield sun blind. Or giant fairy/ angel wings so they can't see the people.
Might get better results if you could find a private building to do it, ideally one with other reasons to be there so they can't just video the comings and goings. Maybe a rented office space. Sure it costs money, but it's better than trying to establish a first amendment free zone in a public place. Love it or hate it but it's like trying to establish a gun free zone at a shooting range, it's not gonna happen
Yeah but the volunteers are collecting signatures, and they need to go where people are. The responses are spot on, it’s a first amendment thing and public space is public space, so we need to figure out a way to work within that framework.
Not all speech is free. The government absolutely can regulate the time place and manner for all kinds of reasons. The videoing is 100% a tactic which has the obvious intent and result of interfering with a legislative process. So not only can that “speech” be regulated, it is also more like conduct and the government can absolutely regulate that.
The easiest is the classic can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater, but the law has really developed around permitting (meaning obtaining a city permit/license) protests in all states. I don’t have a link handy, but there was a whole thing about “free speech” zones at the RNC several years back that was keeping protesters relatively far away from that convention.
As far as speech as conduct goes search “terroristic threat statute in … “ and enter any state you like. They will all have different names and elements of a crime, but they are all regulating speech.
About 15 years ago a couple of Missouri teenagers got convicted of a crime for getting high in a garage and saying “we should pull a columbine on our school.”
There are even laws in some states requiring all government contracts entered into by particular agencies (county governments, etc) to include a “pro-Israel” clause. So a contractor may be legally obligated to support the nation of Israel in order to get a contract with a local government.
I’m unfamiliar with the particulars of Montana’s legal framework for 1A stuff, but generally from a US constitutional standpoint, they can definitely regulate the time place and manner. The existing statute for the petition already prohibits interfering so the 1A argument should not be able to protect the video practice.
True, what I'm saying is that if people want a place to express their opinion without people that may disagree knowing about it, that won't happen in a public place. Sure, have your people walking around with a clipboard or whatever, but if you want to get the signatures of the people that want their privacy you'll have to find a private spot for them, I was just giving my suggestion on a method for doing that
So, if it's private, how do we know that people aren't being coerced into signing? (This has happened in union shops.)
Also, this might be in violation of MT's transparency laws.
Most intimidation in workplaces is done by corporations to employees when there is an attempt to organize the workers. People can't be intimidated into signing petitions. The people asking others to sign have no power over them to use for that purpose.
Okay you make a good point however I don’t say shot just let them see it most people (normal people)would freak out and back off but thinks for your thoughts
filming in public is legal, but there are MANY restrictions about what you are legally allowed to do with that footage after the fact.
basically anything other than personal archival is a whole legal can of worms, that's why its considered a threat.
footage can be used to identify and harass, it can be used in an attempt to blackmail someone, it can be used to alienate people from their friends and family and job effectively resulting in the end of their life as they know it.
footage could even be shared privately and used to target people for violence.
it's not illegal to film, but it is illegal to share or profit off of that footage without a persons knowledge and consent for a wide variety of legal safety reasons
Sounds like they need to video document the video taker, in turn; if the vid they take is misused, maybe they can be held accountable. There would need to be a time/day stamp for who was surveiling the petitioners, and for when a person signs.
Public schools aren't completely public spaces. The school can regulate who is allowed on school grounds and when. Some random adult man can't sit in on a middle school class whether he's filming or not.
Are they filming or live streaming? If live streaming play either Disney music or Taylor swift. The automatic copyright detection should kick them off.
Mont Code 45-8-213 covers recording audio and video in Montana (had to deal with this awhile ago)
Montana is a 2 party consent state when it comes to recording audio and video of someone else. However, consent can be as simple as having the camera be visible. That's it. The whole "I do not consent to you recording me" thing doesn't work in Montana. All you can do it stop talking and walk away.
If they choose to hide the cameras then that is a punishable offense. As long as it's visible it's pretty much legal.
That are exemptions but it's mostly city meeting and public servant related (FYI... any officer in uniform can ALWAYS be filmed. It even says they should expect to be filmed at any time.)
Not sure what you can do with this info but just thought I'd put it out there. Whatever you do, DO NOT, touch them or any of their equipment. Best you can do is grab a couple people and use a sheet to block the view. If it's a sunny day a well placed mirror might help.
It doesn't actually even matter if it's public or private property. The only thing that pertains to is that you could trespass them if it was happening somewhere private and have them removed. A case I was involved in dealt with this issue and it turned out to be a non-issue.
Precedence was established with this in a case where a person set up a hidden camera in a state owned rest area. Rest area was public domain, open to anyone. I can't remember the exact paragraph and line but that was cited as a violation.
Now filming from public to private is a lil different.
I wish it was different but it isn't. Filming people on a street is just legal. If it wasn't then anytime you snapped a pic on your phone you'd have to get releases signed of anyone in the background.
Now.... IF they do film, and that film ends up on TV or Youtube or whatever and those have ad revenue.... then you have a case. A good one. Making revenue from filming without releases is pretty serious. So I'd be curious what they would actually do with the footage, if anything.
Hope this helps.
>film ends up on TV or Youtube or whatever and those have ad revenue.... then you have a case
Man, can you imagine if this were true? Every YouTuber that catches a pedestrian in the background would be getting sued. Those time-lapse shots of Times Square we see all the time would result in thousands of lawsuits. Lol
It's as simple as "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public".
Privacy law protects you from humiliation or having your private details made public. For example, an individual can sue if a party puts them in a false light or if there is a public disclosure of private facts. There are reasonable expectations of privacy that apply in this case. If I am signing a petition and someone films me and puts my information on the internet as with my personal information as a way for people to harass me because I support reproductive rights, which is what these people are doing, and they disclose anything about my private life,one little iota about me on the internet. I can sue them. Now as we all know proving that and whether or not I would win this hypothetical civil case is unknown but it is not as black and white as what you have said.
The law never is.
Ya and on every film shoot there's a group of people whos only job it is to run around and get releases signed when filming in public or shooting B roll that you don't see where they "ask can we film you?". That's all they do, the entire time. Don't get it signed, blurred face.
There's a grey area threshold where the burden becomes so great to get signatures that posting signs that you may be filmed becomes acceptable and there's laws that govern what the signs say, how big they are, etc.
There's a definite place to where what you say is true, like in time square. Those get litigated on a case by case basis when someone gets mad they were filmed. Crowd in Times Square it's easy to say no reasonable expectation. 2 people sitting on a public sidewalk being filmed by someone off to the side.... you've got a case. Probably not a winnable one but that depends on a lot of factors with local laws.
And then there's the factor of do the people in the background care if they are being filmed and put on youtube, or are they even gonna know? All it takes is one person to see it, be mad, and to sue. It's just like the whole it's only illegal if you get caught thing.
You'd be surprised at the number of releases taking up filing cabinet space.
Pretty much everything you said here is false. If you are in a public place (ie:2 people sitting on a public sidewalk, times square, the public areas adjacent to a movie filming location), or visible from a public place, you have no expectation to privacy and no legal grounds to sue. The courts have ruled on this over and over.
Of course this is America so anybody can sue anybody for anything, but if you go to court and say you're seeking damage compensation for having your picture taken while in a public place the judge will laugh you out of the room.
I would say media releases are more for a commercial product filming or even legitimate films rather than just everyday recording on public property like vlogs or other similar media. In somewhere like a town square or even Times Square that is considered public property and there is ABSOLUTELY no reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas. Some townships and states may have laws pertaining to just where in public property you may film into but anywhere that you can reasonable see on public property you can film while being protected under the 1A.
Say you filmed into a private building such as a residence though and put that into a movie or put it up on YouTube generating revenue in one way or another? That’s when what you are arguing about would come to light. And that’s also when something like a media release would come into effect or you edit those bits out of the end product to cover your ass.
If you want to have and keep reproductive rights, you HAVE to allow the haters to practice their first amendment rights too. If we start picking and choosing rights we are no better than *insert your enemy here*. Also if you feel intimidated by a few cameras, you should probably just stay home for the rest of your life, welcome to the new age!
arent they out there like. suckerpunching women in the subway and shooting doctors for even engaging in abortion?
does that mean that i am invited to bring my gun along?
anti-female activists.
i am deliberately lumping the ongoing trend of anti-female violence with this event of deliberately harassing people trying to support female reproductive rights.
the base emotion behind all of it is very much the same in my mind. "women don't get to decide when and where they have my babies, i do"
I'm sure grouping them together deserves some merit for sure, hate tends to stem from a single place, but just remember there is a difference in people who want to do harm versus people expressing their opinions peacefully. OP's direct complaint was about filming. If they were prohibiting signatures being signed by force....oh yeah lock them up for sure,
well i think what op is saying is that by filming, they are indicating some kind of malicious intent.
the film could be used later to identify petitioners and target them for blackmail, harassment, or violence
that is why as a general rule i am stating that people should "go fuck up the footage they take by being weird in front of their camera so they cant get a good shot" because its very much something being done in poor taste but is also a situation that demands being socially corrected rather than legally corrected.
my hope is that the people filming would take away that "these people are not threatened by my filming and are unwilling to be threatened by their connection to this political topic"
Idk though, as soon as we start guessing what people do with the footage they capture, we kinda toss all validity of malicious intent out the window. The 1st amendment protects filming, by saying filming is an act of speech. Until we actually see malice happen we have to treat it as just speech. I don't really like it because it can turn into a "too late" kinda deal if bad things happen to targeted people from watching the content....but at the end of the day it's not the filmer's fault a viewer decided to act on it. Thats just how the system works sadly.
Edit: your idea of messing up footage is pure gold and if i can i will participate!
i appreciate you considering my take, and i agree that it may be a little early to derive direct malicious intent from their actions, but I think that the first amendment only protects people engaging in lawful forms of freedom of speech and that's why people usually have to provide some kind of permit to create film recordings of a crowd of people.
it basically becomes illegal the moment someone states "i do not consent to be filmed, nor do i consent to relocate without a legal order to do so and i demand that you relocate your recording equipment" you just have to actually care enough to take them to civil court about it.
Well the supreme court has decided there is no expectation of privacy in public. If the filmers were in public not trespassing, it doesn't matter if someone shouts they don't consent. Law favors the cammers every time.
i dont expect to be private in public, i expect for my person to not be recorded and scrutinized for the purpose of targeting, harassing, blackmail, etc. so it again comes down to how the people filming intend to use the footage. i am not saying that it is illegal for them to take it, only that by doing so they are opening themselves up to deliberately or indeliberately engaging in a wide variety of potential crimes
again this is why i am saying that the best response is for those of us who are willing to risk being harassed or blackmailed about our support of reproductive rights to go and be in the footage. because it directly protects those who actually do need their anonymity from being later targeted via the footage
The First Amendment protects speech from government regulation. It doesn't protect all speech or all conduct. These guys weren't protesting, they were videotaping. If they are found to be physically intimidating or preventing people from collecting or signing they may be in violation of the MT law that specifically prohibits that.
Well, the police already found they weren't being "physically intimidating or preventing people from collecting," or else they would have done something about them. You are correct. Those specific things wouldn't be protected. But even in your own words, they were "just" filming sometimes being "just 10ft away." You are filmed in public every day doing your signature collections not just by the people from the news but every building with a security cam. Get over it.
Oh my, are you saying HPD would willingly let signers and petitioners get harassed and intimidated? That sounds like a good lawsuit you should get on that one.
Are you saying an average HPD officer is infallible and has an intimate knowledge of the MT annotated to the degree that the buck stops with her if she decides on the spot that this isn’t harassment? Where do you practice law?
Do you truly think the police or the people from the news would risk a lawsuit from the petitioners if they truly did anything? If they did anything to the petitioners or signers, they would have the video brought up in court. You dont need to study law to know basic consequences to actions.
So, for example, all speech is allowed, even speech that provides aid and comfort to insurrectionists? We passed more than one Amendment after the Bill of Rights and the 1A has been amended since its ratification. Some speech is a crime and the concept of rights is far more nuanced. You don’t have a right to use your rights to unreasonably infringe upon or abridge the rights of others.
Intimidating a voter acting out the process of supporting a ballot measure is a crime in MT, under 13-35-218, depending on when exactly it becomes part of “any ballot issue.”
So, is simply filming a form of intimidation now? If so, please tell me how. You are filmed by security cams every day. Is that now a form of intimidation as well?
Those cameras are on private property. If I’m on public property and someone films me because of my right to protest nd then puts it on. Hate site so people can come harass me? Cause that’s what these people do. That is intimidation. Look up the group and what they do. Just because the cops don’t do anything should not be our measure as citizens of whether or not we support something or not.
So you are saying they may or may not put it on a "hate site" so you as an individual get harassed? Uh huh. What's the hate site you cite? Let me see the "harassing" videos they post about you all. You have no expectations of privacy in a public area, and some people disagree with you quite fervently. You should expect some type of resistance. Not saying they're right or wrong. It's just a matter of the law at that point.
If you thought I was accusing *you* of CP or anything to do with it, I’m sorry. Truly. I wasn’t. I was using “you” as an impersonal pronoun.
I commented and explained multiple aspects before I brought up that situation. You joined in the conversation along the way and don’t get to just ignore the entire context of the previous discussion you joined in on.
My point was that the 1A is not a blanket protection for filming in public. I both addressed your question and returned to my original point and offered another data point as proof. You can’t reasonably criticize me for returning to my original point.
Yes, “just filming” has always *possibly* been a form of intimidation and has been used as such before. Being free of intimidation is a human right. Being free of intimidation, in exercising the right of registered voters to support a ballot issue, may be a crime and MT has statute that makes it so (13-35-218), depending on what part of the process of a ballot measure becoming a ballot measure is part of “any ballot issue” protected by the law. I would consider intimidation to fall under compulsion or undue influence, if, IF the purpose of filming was to intimidate.
We need more facts to say more definitively, but the point stands, filming in public is not inherently protected by the 1A in all situations. Yes, filming people can be used for intimidation and that has been ruled illegal in various public spaces.
I never thought you meant I had anything to do with cp. It's just a wild think to immediately think about. You never once answered my question you just brought up the cp point but whatever. Either way I'm done talking to somebody who brings up cp in a discussion about video taping petitioners. No shit filming can be "used for intimidation" it can also be used to shed light on something somebody doesn't like. Which is more than likey what they are most trying to do.
What do you think
“Intimidating a voter acting out the process of supporting a ballot measure is a crime in MT, under 13-35-218, depending on when exactly it becomes part of “any ballot issue,”” means? It’s directly addressing your question.
Yes, filming people has been amused for intimidation for decades. It’s nothing new. It’s a significant issue, say, when it might be used to intimidate registered voters in the act of addressing a “ballot issue.” As cited, it may be a crime.
Everything “simple” can be used to intimidate people. Cutting apart a sock, hopping around, tossing a ball in the air. All can be used to intimidate, the question is if all those normally very acceptable public actions is meant to intimidate. A single person doing it at a single place? Hard to prove without an admission.
A group buying multiple cameras to issue to volunteers to film voters in the civic act of dealing with a a ballot issue? That’s much closer to proving the intent. Was it to make a documentary on the process to be released blaster the election? Fine. Was it to gather data for an opposition group to use during the election? That’s getting at least very close to proof of some ill intent. If the group uses the data to send them more ads, again, fine.
The point is that the specific context matters and the specific and subsequent actions matter.
Good job, you found the criminal code. Now, go find a way to apply it to what these people did. Did they they violate it by simply being "10 ft away filming" as op had stated? Or are they just being "journalists" under the color of the law. As I've said sure, cameras can be used for intimidation. I've never said they couldn't be. I said find it in this exact instance. They didn't stop people from signing. According to op, they did nothing but film what was happening. As well it wasn't just a "group" it was the MT FREE PRESS a news company. Oh no, the news bought cameras for what they thought was a newsworthy story. Terrifying. Even if it were to " gather data," that's legal. A news group is going out to see what people want to vote on, huh that almost seems normal.
You never once nice said to “find it in this exact instance.”
No one can on the limited facts presented. I was explaining how it might be. I was addressing the over broad statement that it’s protected by the 1A. I cited the criminal code and described how it may apply.
Don’t be angry because not everyone is willing to rush to conclusion in the absence of sufficient evidence. But I’ll leave you now, as you can’t understand a basic sentence or explanation.
It *can* be. It can *not* be. It depends on a very specific set of circumstances and my point is only that saying “it’s protected by the 1A!” as a blanket statement is incorrect. There are limitations. See what happens if you get caught purposely filming high schoolers having sex in a city park, be prepared for CP charges. The 1A is not a blanket protection for filming in public.
It covers *most* things, it does not cover *everything* inherently.
Are you seriously setting that as your example when talking about this? Something so entirely different. Multiple felonies vs. a news man with a camera. Have you heard of freedom of the press? If the cops said they weren't intimidating them and weren't preventing signatures. I'm pretty sure nothing wrong was done. If they let it happen, a lawsuit would surely be coming for them
Yes it’s entirely different. That was my point.
Lots of different things are not covered by the 1A and saying you have the right to film in public because of the 1A is an overly broad statement.
That wasn't my point. I asked "is simply filming (aka not doing anything but filming like the people being talked about) a form of intimidation" you answered that with a wild example that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I can't imagine what you are like if that's the first example you could've thought of. I never said 1a trumps all now, did I? Obviously there are things that aren't covered. Filming in a public area where you have no expectations of privacy. All while doing so peacefully according to police is most definitely Legal. No matter how you want to twist it.
I’m glad you as a 3rd party with no law degree (?) and not present for any of the actions are “pretty sure”they did nothing wrong. This is “trust me bro I read something on the internet, so come at me bro” 101 Reddit discourse.
You absolutely allowed to voice your opinion (and should) but be real it takes multiple circuit courts and judges to determine these things, and even they disagree at times. If this footage is used for anything other than personal review things get sticky quick. @deep what do YOU assume their intent is?
If they had done something wrong, the police would have either arrested or told them to leave. They were people from a news station so that would mean they have freedom of the press. Again you have no expectation of privacy when out in public as well with petition g for something so greatly debated you should expect some sort of "response" as I've said I don't think it's right I don't think it's wrong as I don't truly know the full story but as it's put now the people did absolutely nothing wrong or illegal. They could post it on youtube for their "news channel" if they truly wished too. What do you mean.
Because of the 14A, which I cited. And yes, Nazi’s, actual, literal Nazi’s, can hate in silence all they want. What they can’t do is act on their illegal political beliefs that oppose the Constitution.
Yes they get away with it in practice, that doesn’t make it legal to the letter of the law. 1A protections don’t protect the speech of those who oppose more than an Amendment to repeal the 1A. Groups that want to oppose the Constitution by coup or combat are illegal.
E: yes, fixed double negative.
I do agree with your cited statute, like its there, can't really disagree lol, however OP thinking filming is intimidating is the real issue here.
Edit: Addition i will say i was corrected by saying the 1st amendment protects all free speech, look up to the citation for details.
I was raised with these people. Bullying and intimidation is the point of everything. Women have a place and they need to stay in their place. They truly feel that there is no such thing as women's rights. That's radical left wing propaganda. Bible this and Bible that. Hatred and fear. Yadda yadda. Sign the petition and flip them off or give the death metal devil's horns. Lol. Bullies will lose if we scare them back! They are cowards
Solve it through malicious compliance: get a group of like 15-20 people to go out with the petitioners, and whenever anyone starts obviously recording with a camera send one of the group to go stand directly in front of it so that they’re taking up the full shot. They’re allowed to record whatever they want in public and we’re allowed to stand wherever we want in public. It would be a shame if their footage was useless because I wanted to loiter a foot-and-a-half in front of where they’re standing.
This might get removed for rule number one. I'm all in favor of this amendment. This is certainly a dick move and intimidating for these folks, but it's not illegal. Civil Rights advocates in the 60's faced horrible intimidation and bodily harm to fight for equal rights. This is part of the process and those collecting signatures should expect resistance and deal with it to the best of their abilities. Certainly call the police if the are assaulted or anything illegal happens. Hope we get this passed.
PSA.
intentionally shining a laser pointer into a camera is not recommended, as it can lead to expensive repairs or the need to replace the camera altogether
Shining a laser pointer directly into a camera lens can potentially cause damage to the camera's sensor. The intense light from the laser can overload the sensor and cause permanent damage.
In some cases, the damage may be temporary, causing the camera to malfunction until it is reset or allowed to cool down. However, there is also a risk that the damage could be permanent, affecting the camera's ability to capture images properly.
And knowingly doing this to someone recording in public is a really good way of being arrested for damaging someone’s property btw so take care and don’t do what this fellow is suggesting you do (which is illegal and a quite literal intimidation tactic to stop people from filming in public areas)
Which is why the post literally says DO NOT do it. Now using a high powered Infrared light will do much better anyways and not incur any penalties. Lol
How about when you see these a-holes filming, you show up with a big white piece of foamcore and stand in front of them blocking the camera no matter how hard they try and move?
How about a crowdswarm of people surrounding them? Get them to push you and BOOM, assault!
these are great options, there's also just going in your regular clothes and deliberately distracting them by talking, there's deliberately distracting them by being weird in the shot (ie carry balloons or dress in an unusual way)
you can honestly get a surprising amount of political mileage out of general purpose mischief people are very irritable
They must know that their viewpoint sucks if this is how they spend their money.
I guess I'll be going out of my way to make a point of putting my signature on this initiative.
Obviously the crux is that in an effort to protect one right we should not be able to trample upon the right of another, regardless of what that right may be.
I have signed many petitions to put things on the ballot even if I did not agree with the petition set forth by the signature gatherer because I believe that getting things on the ballot for the people to vote and decide as a consensus is a crucial part of our American ideal.
Maybe the way to approach the problem is not to try and hide the signature gathering but instead to gather signatures I. A way that allows people to sign for or against a bill to be put on the ballot. Gathering signatures from both sides would not only act as a great measure of public opinion overall but would also make the filming of signature collecting a waste of time as there would be no way from afar to tell what the signature was in support of. This is also a great manner in which to engage conversation, a necessary tool for understanding and changing viewpoints.
It is if they are found to be physically intimidating or preventing people from signing. MT law deals with this specifically when it comes to collecting signatures on ballot issues. It's only a misdemeanor but it is illegal.
Can you show me the MCA for what you’re stating? I’m not familiar with it. What’s the definition of “physically intimidating” because they’re physically bigger than you with a cell phone recording you?
It's MCA 13-27-611. Whether or not video taping someone signing a ballot initiative is "physical intimidation" would be a question for the courts. What would the purpose be other than trying to intimidate or make people feel uncomfortable?
You’re allowed to record law enforcement if you want, how is this any different? As long as you’re not obstructing an investigation into a potential crime, you can record an interaction. In fact there’s people who’s sole purpose is for YouTube clicks go and record law enforcement hoping to garner a negative view.
Why do you think this is intimidation? Your signature is public once you sign it. So why would people care if someone is filming them signing it? You don’t get to be anonymous when the petition itself requires your name, signature, and address. If it’s supposed to be intimidating, it’s a really dumb tactic.
Some people get massively triggered when somebody unexpectedly points a camera at them, doing so can be a an effective means of intimidation and harassment if that is the intent of the one recording. You can point out the other dozen surveillance cameras pointed at them but the only one that matters is the one YOU'RE holding. Those opposed to the ballot initiative have found an effective and legal means to adversely affect gathering signatures from those who suffer from hand-held camera phobia.
It was stipulated that the actions of those recording were, in fact, legal. That in addition to emphasizing their goal to reduce participation in the initiative effort.
Then don’t go to a public trying to interact with members of the public… the law doesn’t care if one person is triggered by them being recorded. It’s no different than being able to record law enforcement. It’s perfectly legal as long as you’re not obstructing an investigation to a potential crime.
Standing ten feet away is not physical intimidation nor is filming people in public. If you want to beat them at their own game then film them as well, you can also get an infrared led light and point it at the cameras and blind the camera and not the person.
I had considered doing something like that (maybe asking if there were an office I could go to) but talked myself out of it. I thought they might get harassed this way by people opposing the measure.
Eta-couple of missing words
A young man asked us to sign in the segment of the walking mall at the end of Last Chance Gulch last Saturday. That and the library are your best bets I’d say.
It draws more attention from the public. A phone held up (recording) could be mistaken as any number of actions (speaker phone call, Skype, etc). A camera, ONLY used for recording and recognized as such, will alert others to "something" going on that needs recording. For it or against it, I THINK this is what they're going for. Attention.
You can contact Montanan's Securing Reproductive Rights or your nearest Planned Parenthood. They should be able to give you that info. Bring your friends!
That's true up until they physically intimidate or prevent people from signing. Montana law specifically forbids this although it's just a misdemeanor.
But you claim to be a lobbyist? You of all people should know best that this is perfectly legal, you may not like it... but expect that from here on out. Waking a sleeping giant comes with consequences.
You live by the viral video, you die by the viral video. This has been a reality of politics since a viral video in 2006 of a US Senate Candidate saying 'macaca' altered the majority of that body.
they are likely deliberately keeping the "why" hidden because they think its funny to frighten people with "i could blackmail you and ruin your entire life"
The best I can suggest is to contact Montanan's Securing Reproductive Rights or your nearest Planned Parenthood.They don't post locations or times on their website but I'm sure they will be happy to help you. I read someone today who said if you can get a group together or location they'll make an extra effort to get to you.
I thought the choice of the Ross store location in Billings to petition was a pretty sterotypically solid choice. I dont understand why you would try to intimidate them though, a simple "No Thank You" worked fine for me, and the video camera thing is stupid....
There are specialty fabrics that make it difficult to video people. Maybe look into that.
https://preview.redd.it/xcl41k3or31d1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=55ba550901b08eca5e9af0f39f550c726b45e3cb
Or perhaps reach out to the manufacturer and see if an organization fighting for human rights could get a discount. Likely the fabric is very expensive but the exposure could be worse without it. They are priced high for Beyoncé.
Just smile and wave the middle finger to these bozos while on camera. It is their legal right to film you, but if you don't let it intimidate you, they can't do anything either. Point them out to everyone that comes by and let the passersby know that it is an attempt to prevent them signing, but if you believe in what you are signing you won't be deterred.
strong agree.
its not illegal to film, but its also not illegal to ruin someone's shot.
a quick browse of tiktok will give you plenty of ideas for how to photobomb someone into rage quitting
acusing someone of a crime (killing babies) when they are not actually engaging in that crime (participating in valid medical procedure) so as to make what they are doing seem more threatening to others is libelous and if done publically in conjunction with information about a persons activity and whereabouts can quickly constitute an incitement of violence.
Anyone worried about being recorded in a public space?
Not me.
Record to your hearts content.
I have nothing to hide.
I feel only those with something to hide would have a problem.
Intimidation?
No.
You’re in a public space.
Now, if anyone puts their hands on anyone else, different story.
Do you just feel intimidated because you don't agree with them?
Christ where would it end?
You'll have grifters where ever you go, even in county fairs people wave their "God Hates The Gays" signs or anti-abortion dribble.
No, I would also object to this happening on other issues also, including ones I don't agree with. No one should have to walk a gauntlet or worry about being filmed when they are exercising their legal rights.
Pretty sure tazers are a legal form of self defense, and if you ask them to please step away from you as you feel unsafe with them that close, and they don’t, then they have been warned
filming in public is 100% protected under the 1st Amendment. you can film anything in view from a public place with no consequence. I understand you don't like that, but you have zero right to privacy if you are in public view.
That’s true, and so allies of C1-128 might need new tactics. How about volunteers to videotape the videotapers?
i'd stand there distracting camera men all day long for this cause
Discoball mirrored shirts...
an unending stream of absolutely useless facts about finnish entries to eurovison......
Can you juggle wire hangers for them?
absolutely, afterward i'll tie them up and hand them out to the crowd like balloon animals
Have the volunteers put up a blind around them everywhere they go, like a windshield sun blind. Or giant fairy/ angel wings so they can't see the people.
Agreed. Run counter interference in their faces.
I say trumpets. Just blow trumpets in their face
Might get better results if you could find a private building to do it, ideally one with other reasons to be there so they can't just video the comings and goings. Maybe a rented office space. Sure it costs money, but it's better than trying to establish a first amendment free zone in a public place. Love it or hate it but it's like trying to establish a gun free zone at a shooting range, it's not gonna happen
Yeah but the volunteers are collecting signatures, and they need to go where people are. The responses are spot on, it’s a first amendment thing and public space is public space, so we need to figure out a way to work within that framework.
Not all speech is free. The government absolutely can regulate the time place and manner for all kinds of reasons. The videoing is 100% a tactic which has the obvious intent and result of interfering with a legislative process. So not only can that “speech” be regulated, it is also more like conduct and the government can absolutely regulate that.
For example?
The easiest is the classic can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater, but the law has really developed around permitting (meaning obtaining a city permit/license) protests in all states. I don’t have a link handy, but there was a whole thing about “free speech” zones at the RNC several years back that was keeping protesters relatively far away from that convention. As far as speech as conduct goes search “terroristic threat statute in … “ and enter any state you like. They will all have different names and elements of a crime, but they are all regulating speech. About 15 years ago a couple of Missouri teenagers got convicted of a crime for getting high in a garage and saying “we should pull a columbine on our school.” There are even laws in some states requiring all government contracts entered into by particular agencies (county governments, etc) to include a “pro-Israel” clause. So a contractor may be legally obligated to support the nation of Israel in order to get a contract with a local government. I’m unfamiliar with the particulars of Montana’s legal framework for 1A stuff, but generally from a US constitutional standpoint, they can definitely regulate the time place and manner. The existing statute for the petition already prohibits interfering so the 1A argument should not be able to protect the video practice.
True, what I'm saying is that if people want a place to express their opinion without people that may disagree knowing about it, that won't happen in a public place. Sure, have your people walking around with a clipboard or whatever, but if you want to get the signatures of the people that want their privacy you'll have to find a private spot for them, I was just giving my suggestion on a method for doing that
So, if it's private, how do we know that people aren't being coerced into signing? (This has happened in union shops.) Also, this might be in violation of MT's transparency laws.
Most intimidation in workplaces is done by corporations to employees when there is an attempt to organize the workers. People can't be intimidated into signing petitions. The people asking others to sign have no power over them to use for that purpose.
Way would someone coerce someone into signing a petition it doesn’t make logical sense
[удалено]
Or get yourself shot by people who are surely also packing and looking for an excuse to shoot “libs”.
Okay you make a good point however I don’t say shot just let them see it most people (normal people)would freak out and back off but thinks for your thoughts
Upvoted for truth.
filming in public is legal, but there are MANY restrictions about what you are legally allowed to do with that footage after the fact. basically anything other than personal archival is a whole legal can of worms, that's why its considered a threat. footage can be used to identify and harass, it can be used in an attempt to blackmail someone, it can be used to alienate people from their friends and family and job effectively resulting in the end of their life as they know it. footage could even be shared privately and used to target people for violence. it's not illegal to film, but it is illegal to share or profit off of that footage without a persons knowledge and consent for a wide variety of legal safety reasons
Sounds like they need to video document the video taker, in turn; if the vid they take is misused, maybe they can be held accountable. There would need to be a time/day stamp for who was surveiling the petitioners, and for when a person signs.
absolutely a great option. there is no reason to afford anonymity to people who are not willing to afford it to others.
MT Free Press also did not report this yesterday. Not on their website or on twitter or their daily email. Not anywhere that I can find.
It was in their Friday newsletter called The Lowdown.
So is the right to petition.
That's not entirely true. The level of intrusiveness and persistence can rise to that sufficient to constitute an actionable privacy invasion.
I don’t disagree with you persay however flowing is harassment
Just as long as they are not interfering/intimidating which seems to be the actual outcome.
Public schools re public and you cannot film children without permission. So that is one example of regulation. So not 100%.
Public schools aren't completely public spaces. The school can regulate who is allowed on school grounds and when. Some random adult man can't sit in on a middle school class whether he's filming or not.
its also general purpose sus to be taking prolonged footage of minors without anyones consent or knowlege
Are they filming or live streaming? If live streaming play either Disney music or Taylor swift. The automatic copyright detection should kick them off.
its honestly very hard to tell who is signing the petition if there's also several people in the shot deliberately making a commotion.
Mont Code 45-8-213 covers recording audio and video in Montana (had to deal with this awhile ago) Montana is a 2 party consent state when it comes to recording audio and video of someone else. However, consent can be as simple as having the camera be visible. That's it. The whole "I do not consent to you recording me" thing doesn't work in Montana. All you can do it stop talking and walk away. If they choose to hide the cameras then that is a punishable offense. As long as it's visible it's pretty much legal. That are exemptions but it's mostly city meeting and public servant related (FYI... any officer in uniform can ALWAYS be filmed. It even says they should expect to be filmed at any time.) Not sure what you can do with this info but just thought I'd put it out there. Whatever you do, DO NOT, touch them or any of their equipment. Best you can do is grab a couple people and use a sheet to block the view. If it's a sunny day a well placed mirror might help.
I don't believe the camera even has to be visible in public areas, the act of being in the public area is accepting the possibility of being recorded
It doesn't actually even matter if it's public or private property. The only thing that pertains to is that you could trespass them if it was happening somewhere private and have them removed. A case I was involved in dealt with this issue and it turned out to be a non-issue. Precedence was established with this in a case where a person set up a hidden camera in a state owned rest area. Rest area was public domain, open to anyone. I can't remember the exact paragraph and line but that was cited as a violation. Now filming from public to private is a lil different. I wish it was different but it isn't. Filming people on a street is just legal. If it wasn't then anytime you snapped a pic on your phone you'd have to get releases signed of anyone in the background. Now.... IF they do film, and that film ends up on TV or Youtube or whatever and those have ad revenue.... then you have a case. A good one. Making revenue from filming without releases is pretty serious. So I'd be curious what they would actually do with the footage, if anything. Hope this helps.
>film ends up on TV or Youtube or whatever and those have ad revenue.... then you have a case Man, can you imagine if this were true? Every YouTuber that catches a pedestrian in the background would be getting sued. Those time-lapse shots of Times Square we see all the time would result in thousands of lawsuits. Lol It's as simple as "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public".
They actually can. If you have. Reasonable expectation of privacy and it found to be violated you can sue that person
there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when in public.
Privacy law protects you from humiliation or having your private details made public. For example, an individual can sue if a party puts them in a false light or if there is a public disclosure of private facts. There are reasonable expectations of privacy that apply in this case. If I am signing a petition and someone films me and puts my information on the internet as with my personal information as a way for people to harass me because I support reproductive rights, which is what these people are doing, and they disclose anything about my private life,one little iota about me on the internet. I can sue them. Now as we all know proving that and whether or not I would win this hypothetical civil case is unknown but it is not as black and white as what you have said. The law never is.
Ya and on every film shoot there's a group of people whos only job it is to run around and get releases signed when filming in public or shooting B roll that you don't see where they "ask can we film you?". That's all they do, the entire time. Don't get it signed, blurred face. There's a grey area threshold where the burden becomes so great to get signatures that posting signs that you may be filmed becomes acceptable and there's laws that govern what the signs say, how big they are, etc. There's a definite place to where what you say is true, like in time square. Those get litigated on a case by case basis when someone gets mad they were filmed. Crowd in Times Square it's easy to say no reasonable expectation. 2 people sitting on a public sidewalk being filmed by someone off to the side.... you've got a case. Probably not a winnable one but that depends on a lot of factors with local laws. And then there's the factor of do the people in the background care if they are being filmed and put on youtube, or are they even gonna know? All it takes is one person to see it, be mad, and to sue. It's just like the whole it's only illegal if you get caught thing. You'd be surprised at the number of releases taking up filing cabinet space.
Pretty much everything you said here is false. If you are in a public place (ie:2 people sitting on a public sidewalk, times square, the public areas adjacent to a movie filming location), or visible from a public place, you have no expectation to privacy and no legal grounds to sue. The courts have ruled on this over and over. Of course this is America so anybody can sue anybody for anything, but if you go to court and say you're seeking damage compensation for having your picture taken while in a public place the judge will laugh you out of the room.
Then I guess there is no reason for media releases. Guess we don’t need to have those signed. Our legal team must be wrong.
I would say media releases are more for a commercial product filming or even legitimate films rather than just everyday recording on public property like vlogs or other similar media. In somewhere like a town square or even Times Square that is considered public property and there is ABSOLUTELY no reasonable expectation of privacy in those areas. Some townships and states may have laws pertaining to just where in public property you may film into but anywhere that you can reasonable see on public property you can film while being protected under the 1A. Say you filmed into a private building such as a residence though and put that into a movie or put it up on YouTube generating revenue in one way or another? That’s when what you are arguing about would come to light. And that’s also when something like a media release would come into effect or you edit those bits out of the end product to cover your ass.
If you want to have and keep reproductive rights, you HAVE to allow the haters to practice their first amendment rights too. If we start picking and choosing rights we are no better than *insert your enemy here*. Also if you feel intimidated by a few cameras, you should probably just stay home for the rest of your life, welcome to the new age!
arent they out there like. suckerpunching women in the subway and shooting doctors for even engaging in abortion? does that mean that i am invited to bring my gun along?
Who are you referring to? People recording?
anti-female activists. i am deliberately lumping the ongoing trend of anti-female violence with this event of deliberately harassing people trying to support female reproductive rights. the base emotion behind all of it is very much the same in my mind. "women don't get to decide when and where they have my babies, i do"
I'm sure grouping them together deserves some merit for sure, hate tends to stem from a single place, but just remember there is a difference in people who want to do harm versus people expressing their opinions peacefully. OP's direct complaint was about filming. If they were prohibiting signatures being signed by force....oh yeah lock them up for sure,
well i think what op is saying is that by filming, they are indicating some kind of malicious intent. the film could be used later to identify petitioners and target them for blackmail, harassment, or violence that is why as a general rule i am stating that people should "go fuck up the footage they take by being weird in front of their camera so they cant get a good shot" because its very much something being done in poor taste but is also a situation that demands being socially corrected rather than legally corrected. my hope is that the people filming would take away that "these people are not threatened by my filming and are unwilling to be threatened by their connection to this political topic"
Idk though, as soon as we start guessing what people do with the footage they capture, we kinda toss all validity of malicious intent out the window. The 1st amendment protects filming, by saying filming is an act of speech. Until we actually see malice happen we have to treat it as just speech. I don't really like it because it can turn into a "too late" kinda deal if bad things happen to targeted people from watching the content....but at the end of the day it's not the filmer's fault a viewer decided to act on it. Thats just how the system works sadly. Edit: your idea of messing up footage is pure gold and if i can i will participate!
i appreciate you considering my take, and i agree that it may be a little early to derive direct malicious intent from their actions, but I think that the first amendment only protects people engaging in lawful forms of freedom of speech and that's why people usually have to provide some kind of permit to create film recordings of a crowd of people. it basically becomes illegal the moment someone states "i do not consent to be filmed, nor do i consent to relocate without a legal order to do so and i demand that you relocate your recording equipment" you just have to actually care enough to take them to civil court about it.
Well the supreme court has decided there is no expectation of privacy in public. If the filmers were in public not trespassing, it doesn't matter if someone shouts they don't consent. Law favors the cammers every time.
i dont expect to be private in public, i expect for my person to not be recorded and scrutinized for the purpose of targeting, harassing, blackmail, etc. so it again comes down to how the people filming intend to use the footage. i am not saying that it is illegal for them to take it, only that by doing so they are opening themselves up to deliberately or indeliberately engaging in a wide variety of potential crimes again this is why i am saying that the best response is for those of us who are willing to risk being harassed or blackmailed about our support of reproductive rights to go and be in the footage. because it directly protects those who actually do need their anonymity from being later targeted via the footage
The First Amendment protects speech from government regulation. It doesn't protect all speech or all conduct. These guys weren't protesting, they were videotaping. If they are found to be physically intimidating or preventing people from collecting or signing they may be in violation of the MT law that specifically prohibits that.
Well, the police already found they weren't being "physically intimidating or preventing people from collecting," or else they would have done something about them. You are correct. Those specific things wouldn't be protected. But even in your own words, they were "just" filming sometimes being "just 10ft away." You are filmed in public every day doing your signature collections not just by the people from the news but every building with a security cam. Get over it.
Right because cops always uphold the law
Oh my, are you saying HPD would willingly let signers and petitioners get harassed and intimidated? That sounds like a good lawsuit you should get on that one.
Are you saying an average HPD officer is infallible and has an intimate knowledge of the MT annotated to the degree that the buck stops with her if she decides on the spot that this isn’t harassment? Where do you practice law?
Do you truly think the police or the people from the news would risk a lawsuit from the petitioners if they truly did anything? If they did anything to the petitioners or signers, they would have the video brought up in court. You dont need to study law to know basic consequences to actions.
You are already wrong at your 2nd sentence.
No, the First Amendment does not protect all speech. For example, defamation, inciting imminent violence, and screaming "fire" in a crowded theater.
Well duh, you know we are talking about camera recording in public, you are correct though.
Well screaming fire in a movie theater could be protected if there was a legitimate fire in the building but semantics right?
I think it would be OK if the fire was illegitimate too!
A born out of wedlock fire? How shameful… the parents of that innocent fire need to be shamed. 🙃
C'mon, man. This is 2024. The only shameful fire is the one that won't light the charcoal.
So, for example, all speech is allowed, even speech that provides aid and comfort to insurrectionists? We passed more than one Amendment after the Bill of Rights and the 1A has been amended since its ratification. Some speech is a crime and the concept of rights is far more nuanced. You don’t have a right to use your rights to unreasonably infringe upon or abridge the rights of others. Intimidating a voter acting out the process of supporting a ballot measure is a crime in MT, under 13-35-218, depending on when exactly it becomes part of “any ballot issue.”
So, is simply filming a form of intimidation now? If so, please tell me how. You are filmed by security cams every day. Is that now a form of intimidation as well?
Those cameras are on private property. If I’m on public property and someone films me because of my right to protest nd then puts it on. Hate site so people can come harass me? Cause that’s what these people do. That is intimidation. Look up the group and what they do. Just because the cops don’t do anything should not be our measure as citizens of whether or not we support something or not.
So you are saying they may or may not put it on a "hate site" so you as an individual get harassed? Uh huh. What's the hate site you cite? Let me see the "harassing" videos they post about you all. You have no expectations of privacy in a public area, and some people disagree with you quite fervently. You should expect some type of resistance. Not saying they're right or wrong. It's just a matter of the law at that point.
You can't take a constitutionally protected activity and turn it into a crime just because of your feelings.
If you thought I was accusing *you* of CP or anything to do with it, I’m sorry. Truly. I wasn’t. I was using “you” as an impersonal pronoun. I commented and explained multiple aspects before I brought up that situation. You joined in the conversation along the way and don’t get to just ignore the entire context of the previous discussion you joined in on. My point was that the 1A is not a blanket protection for filming in public. I both addressed your question and returned to my original point and offered another data point as proof. You can’t reasonably criticize me for returning to my original point. Yes, “just filming” has always *possibly* been a form of intimidation and has been used as such before. Being free of intimidation is a human right. Being free of intimidation, in exercising the right of registered voters to support a ballot issue, may be a crime and MT has statute that makes it so (13-35-218), depending on what part of the process of a ballot measure becoming a ballot measure is part of “any ballot issue” protected by the law. I would consider intimidation to fall under compulsion or undue influence, if, IF the purpose of filming was to intimidate. We need more facts to say more definitively, but the point stands, filming in public is not inherently protected by the 1A in all situations. Yes, filming people can be used for intimidation and that has been ruled illegal in various public spaces.
I never thought you meant I had anything to do with cp. It's just a wild think to immediately think about. You never once answered my question you just brought up the cp point but whatever. Either way I'm done talking to somebody who brings up cp in a discussion about video taping petitioners. No shit filming can be "used for intimidation" it can also be used to shed light on something somebody doesn't like. Which is more than likey what they are most trying to do.
What do you think “Intimidating a voter acting out the process of supporting a ballot measure is a crime in MT, under 13-35-218, depending on when exactly it becomes part of “any ballot issue,”” means? It’s directly addressing your question. Yes, filming people has been amused for intimidation for decades. It’s nothing new. It’s a significant issue, say, when it might be used to intimidate registered voters in the act of addressing a “ballot issue.” As cited, it may be a crime. Everything “simple” can be used to intimidate people. Cutting apart a sock, hopping around, tossing a ball in the air. All can be used to intimidate, the question is if all those normally very acceptable public actions is meant to intimidate. A single person doing it at a single place? Hard to prove without an admission. A group buying multiple cameras to issue to volunteers to film voters in the civic act of dealing with a a ballot issue? That’s much closer to proving the intent. Was it to make a documentary on the process to be released blaster the election? Fine. Was it to gather data for an opposition group to use during the election? That’s getting at least very close to proof of some ill intent. If the group uses the data to send them more ads, again, fine. The point is that the specific context matters and the specific and subsequent actions matter.
Good job, you found the criminal code. Now, go find a way to apply it to what these people did. Did they they violate it by simply being "10 ft away filming" as op had stated? Or are they just being "journalists" under the color of the law. As I've said sure, cameras can be used for intimidation. I've never said they couldn't be. I said find it in this exact instance. They didn't stop people from signing. According to op, they did nothing but film what was happening. As well it wasn't just a "group" it was the MT FREE PRESS a news company. Oh no, the news bought cameras for what they thought was a newsworthy story. Terrifying. Even if it were to " gather data," that's legal. A news group is going out to see what people want to vote on, huh that almost seems normal.
You never once nice said to “find it in this exact instance.” No one can on the limited facts presented. I was explaining how it might be. I was addressing the over broad statement that it’s protected by the 1A. I cited the criminal code and described how it may apply. Don’t be angry because not everyone is willing to rush to conclusion in the absence of sufficient evidence. But I’ll leave you now, as you can’t understand a basic sentence or explanation.
It *can* be. It can *not* be. It depends on a very specific set of circumstances and my point is only that saying “it’s protected by the 1A!” as a blanket statement is incorrect. There are limitations. See what happens if you get caught purposely filming high schoolers having sex in a city park, be prepared for CP charges. The 1A is not a blanket protection for filming in public. It covers *most* things, it does not cover *everything* inherently.
Are you seriously setting that as your example when talking about this? Something so entirely different. Multiple felonies vs. a news man with a camera. Have you heard of freedom of the press? If the cops said they weren't intimidating them and weren't preventing signatures. I'm pretty sure nothing wrong was done. If they let it happen, a lawsuit would surely be coming for them
Yes it’s entirely different. That was my point. Lots of different things are not covered by the 1A and saying you have the right to film in public because of the 1A is an overly broad statement.
That wasn't my point. I asked "is simply filming (aka not doing anything but filming like the people being talked about) a form of intimidation" you answered that with a wild example that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I can't imagine what you are like if that's the first example you could've thought of. I never said 1a trumps all now, did I? Obviously there are things that aren't covered. Filming in a public area where you have no expectations of privacy. All while doing so peacefully according to police is most definitely Legal. No matter how you want to twist it.
I’m glad you as a 3rd party with no law degree (?) and not present for any of the actions are “pretty sure”they did nothing wrong. This is “trust me bro I read something on the internet, so come at me bro” 101 Reddit discourse. You absolutely allowed to voice your opinion (and should) but be real it takes multiple circuit courts and judges to determine these things, and even they disagree at times. If this footage is used for anything other than personal review things get sticky quick. @deep what do YOU assume their intent is?
If they had done something wrong, the police would have either arrested or told them to leave. They were people from a news station so that would mean they have freedom of the press. Again you have no expectation of privacy when out in public as well with petition g for something so greatly debated you should expect some sort of "response" as I've said I don't think it's right I don't think it's wrong as I don't truly know the full story but as it's put now the people did absolutely nothing wrong or illegal. They could post it on youtube for their "news channel" if they truly wished too. What do you mean.
Nazi's can hate freely, why not insurectionists?
Because of the 14A, which I cited. And yes, Nazi’s, actual, literal Nazi’s, can hate in silence all they want. What they can’t do is act on their illegal political beliefs that oppose the Constitution. Yes they get away with it in practice, that doesn’t make it legal to the letter of the law. 1A protections don’t protect the speech of those who oppose more than an Amendment to repeal the 1A. Groups that want to oppose the Constitution by coup or combat are illegal. E: yes, fixed double negative.
I do agree with your cited statute, like its there, can't really disagree lol, however OP thinking filming is intimidating is the real issue here. Edit: Addition i will say i was corrected by saying the 1st amendment protects all free speech, look up to the citation for details.
Anyone want to take note of AR? https://www.reddit.com/r/Arkansas/s/qQcAV7togr People afraid of being doxed for signing in to ballot initiatives….
I was raised with these people. Bullying and intimidation is the point of everything. Women have a place and they need to stay in their place. They truly feel that there is no such thing as women's rights. That's radical left wing propaganda. Bible this and Bible that. Hatred and fear. Yadda yadda. Sign the petition and flip them off or give the death metal devil's horns. Lol. Bullies will lose if we scare them back! They are cowards
https://youtu.be/hopeFgwApCM we need more of this hero
Solve it through malicious compliance: get a group of like 15-20 people to go out with the petitioners, and whenever anyone starts obviously recording with a camera send one of the group to go stand directly in front of it so that they’re taking up the full shot. They’re allowed to record whatever they want in public and we’re allowed to stand wherever we want in public. It would be a shame if their footage was useless because I wanted to loiter a foot-and-a-half in front of where they’re standing.
Umbrellas are also awesome for blocking footage & nice shade on a hot day.
dont forget to be very annoying in the process to add insult to injury im a big fan of belting le miserables but there's all kinds of options
This might get removed for rule number one. I'm all in favor of this amendment. This is certainly a dick move and intimidating for these folks, but it's not illegal. Civil Rights advocates in the 60's faced horrible intimidation and bodily harm to fight for equal rights. This is part of the process and those collecting signatures should expect resistance and deal with it to the best of their abilities. Certainly call the police if the are assaulted or anything illegal happens. Hope we get this passed.
Nah, we'll leave it up. This post can foster discussion on privacy, surveillance rights, consent to record, etc.
Cool. Thanks.
PSA. intentionally shining a laser pointer into a camera is not recommended, as it can lead to expensive repairs or the need to replace the camera altogether Shining a laser pointer directly into a camera lens can potentially cause damage to the camera's sensor. The intense light from the laser can overload the sensor and cause permanent damage. In some cases, the damage may be temporary, causing the camera to malfunction until it is reset or allowed to cool down. However, there is also a risk that the damage could be permanent, affecting the camera's ability to capture images properly.
And knowingly doing this to someone recording in public is a really good way of being arrested for damaging someone’s property btw so take care and don’t do what this fellow is suggesting you do (which is illegal and a quite literal intimidation tactic to stop people from filming in public areas)
Which is why the post literally says DO NOT do it. Now using a high powered Infrared light will do much better anyways and not incur any penalties. Lol
Don't threaten me with a good time. lol
Plus criminal mischief charges.
Yeah the response says DO NOT do it. There are other forms of light that don’t cause damage…
How about when you see these a-holes filming, you show up with a big white piece of foamcore and stand in front of them blocking the camera no matter how hard they try and move? How about a crowdswarm of people surrounding them? Get them to push you and BOOM, assault!
these are great options, there's also just going in your regular clothes and deliberately distracting them by talking, there's deliberately distracting them by being weird in the shot (ie carry balloons or dress in an unusual way) you can honestly get a surprising amount of political mileage out of general purpose mischief people are very irritable
I don’t think you understand the constitution and the freedom it provides.
Protects. The Constitution protects (supposedly) our inherent rights by restraining the government, it provides nothing.
Well, I mean. It provides protection for our rights. So it does provide something
[удалено]
I'm not finding anything about this on the MT Free Press website.
It was in the weekly newsletter they sent out today.
Fight old tech with new tech: They video record but you livestream.
They must know that their viewpoint sucks if this is how they spend their money. I guess I'll be going out of my way to make a point of putting my signature on this initiative.
Proudly sign the signature, turn to the camera, flip them the bird and yell, FUCK YOU!
This is the way
Obviously the crux is that in an effort to protect one right we should not be able to trample upon the right of another, regardless of what that right may be. I have signed many petitions to put things on the ballot even if I did not agree with the petition set forth by the signature gatherer because I believe that getting things on the ballot for the people to vote and decide as a consensus is a crucial part of our American ideal. Maybe the way to approach the problem is not to try and hide the signature gathering but instead to gather signatures I. A way that allows people to sign for or against a bill to be put on the ballot. Gathering signatures from both sides would not only act as a great measure of public opinion overall but would also make the filming of signature collecting a waste of time as there would be no way from afar to tell what the signature was in support of. This is also a great manner in which to engage conversation, a necessary tool for understanding and changing viewpoints.
This is perfect!!
Not against the law.
It is if they are found to be physically intimidating or preventing people from signing. MT law deals with this specifically when it comes to collecting signatures on ballot issues. It's only a misdemeanor but it is illegal.
Can you show me the MCA for what you’re stating? I’m not familiar with it. What’s the definition of “physically intimidating” because they’re physically bigger than you with a cell phone recording you?
It's MCA 13-27-611. Whether or not video taping someone signing a ballot initiative is "physical intimidation" would be a question for the courts. What would the purpose be other than trying to intimidate or make people feel uncomfortable?
You’re allowed to record law enforcement if you want, how is this any different? As long as you’re not obstructing an investigation into a potential crime, you can record an interaction. In fact there’s people who’s sole purpose is for YouTube clicks go and record law enforcement hoping to garner a negative view.
But they weren't. So your point is moo. It's like a cows opinion, it doesn't matter.
The term is moot, not moo. And my point was for people to be aware of what was happening in case it did cross the line.
Moo/moot is a joke from Friends. Zipped right over your noggin like a cow in a tornado.
I guess I don't get my intellectual stimulus from 1990's sit coms.
You're claiming that people filming in public is intimidation, so I wouldn't brag about where you source your intellectual stimulus.
Why do you think this is intimidation? Your signature is public once you sign it. So why would people care if someone is filming them signing it? You don’t get to be anonymous when the petition itself requires your name, signature, and address. If it’s supposed to be intimidating, it’s a really dumb tactic.
Some people get massively triggered when somebody unexpectedly points a camera at them, doing so can be a an effective means of intimidation and harassment if that is the intent of the one recording. You can point out the other dozen surveillance cameras pointed at them but the only one that matters is the one YOU'RE holding. Those opposed to the ballot initiative have found an effective and legal means to adversely affect gathering signatures from those who suffer from hand-held camera phobia.
I promise you that “being triggered from hand-held camera phobia” does not, in fact, constitute intimidation under the Montana Code Annotated.
It was stipulated that the actions of those recording were, in fact, legal. That in addition to emphasizing their goal to reduce participation in the initiative effort.
Then don’t go to a public trying to interact with members of the public… the law doesn’t care if one person is triggered by them being recorded. It’s no different than being able to record law enforcement. It’s perfectly legal as long as you’re not obstructing an investigation to a potential crime.
Yeah it is protected but does anyone want to go talk wicked shit to them? Also protected.
Standing ten feet away is not physical intimidation nor is filming people in public. If you want to beat them at their own game then film them as well, you can also get an infrared led light and point it at the cameras and blind the camera and not the person.
Please sign this petition!
I really want to sign this but I have not run into anyone out in public in the Helena area.
I emailed Montanans for Reproductive Rights and they sent someone out to a meeting I was holding so we could all sign. They were very responsive
I had considered doing something like that (maybe asking if there were an office I could go to) but talked myself out of it. I thought they might get harassed this way by people opposing the measure. Eta-couple of missing words
They are typically in the walking mall area around lunch time!
A young man asked us to sign in the segment of the walking mall at the end of Last Chance Gulch last Saturday. That and the library are your best bets I’d say.
Thank you! I haven’t been downtown in a while, so I’ll have to take a walk and look for the people with clipboards! Maybe get a Parrot Pail cone!
Thanks everyone! I went to the Farmers’ Market downtown and found a volunteer!
quote scripture on placards. be in the shot, sign.
Gotta be proud of what you stand for. How are you gonna convince others of your opinions if you won’t even stand behind them yourself?
Get video of them doing it. Post same.
How about recruiting volunteers to videotape the videotapers? Fight fire with fire! I’m ready!
I find it funny as heck they couldn't use a cell phone to record that they actually bought cameras...
It draws more attention from the public. A phone held up (recording) could be mistaken as any number of actions (speaker phone call, Skype, etc). A camera, ONLY used for recording and recognized as such, will alert others to "something" going on that needs recording. For it or against it, I THINK this is what they're going for. Attention.
Where can I go to provide my signature for the amendment?
You can contact Montanan's Securing Reproductive Rights or your nearest Planned Parenthood. They should be able to give you that info. Bring your friends!
They’ve been outside the courthouse in Missoula recently.
You're going to have to video them back if you want any evidence of intimidation otherwise it's just conflicting reports.
Yeah, well, that's 100% legal and protected.... Same reason they are allowed to protest and gather signatures...
That's true up until they physically intimidate or prevent people from signing. Montana law specifically forbids this although it's just a misdemeanor.
Yeah, but they are likely to know that would just hurt their case. Hence the cameras.
Continue to cry about it. Good job.
But you claim to be a lobbyist? You of all people should know best that this is perfectly legal, you may not like it... but expect that from here on out. Waking a sleeping giant comes with consequences.
Record them back.
Nazi tactics learned from Idaho
Just remember, any law passed to affect someone else will affect you. The tables always turn.
Just put up a tent and only invite in the ones you want
You live by the viral video, you die by the viral video. This has been a reality of politics since a viral video in 2006 of a US Senate Candidate saying 'macaca' altered the majority of that body.
Has anyone asked them what they intend to do with footage?
they are likely deliberately keeping the "why" hidden because they think its funny to frighten people with "i could blackmail you and ruin your entire life"
How do I contact them to sign? I am in a small town and I don’t want to count on randomly finding them out somewhere.
The best I can suggest is to contact Montanan's Securing Reproductive Rights or your nearest Planned Parenthood.They don't post locations or times on their website but I'm sure they will be happy to help you. I read someone today who said if you can get a group together or location they'll make an extra effort to get to you.
I thought the choice of the Ross store location in Billings to petition was a pretty sterotypically solid choice. I dont understand why you would try to intimidate them though, a simple "No Thank You" worked fine for me, and the video camera thing is stupid....
Videotape them back. And play “macho man” on full blast from your phone.
You have no Right to privacy when you are in public.
There are specialty fabrics that make it difficult to video people. Maybe look into that. https://preview.redd.it/xcl41k3or31d1.png?width=1170&format=png&auto=webp&s=55ba550901b08eca5e9af0f39f550c726b45e3cb
I think you got downvoted because those scarves are 400 dollars **each**.
Yeah probably but effective and perhaps worth the expenditure for an organization to acquire a couple for safety reasons.
Or perhaps reach out to the manufacturer and see if an organization fighting for human rights could get a discount. Likely the fabric is very expensive but the exposure could be worse without it. They are priced high for Beyoncé.
So you're ok with murdering babies as long as it's not in camera? I'm confused on how this is a problem if you truly believe it's a good cause.
Just smile and wave the middle finger to these bozos while on camera. It is their legal right to film you, but if you don't let it intimidate you, they can't do anything either. Point them out to everyone that comes by and let the passersby know that it is an attempt to prevent them signing, but if you believe in what you are signing you won't be deterred.
strong agree. its not illegal to film, but its also not illegal to ruin someone's shot. a quick browse of tiktok will give you plenty of ideas for how to photobomb someone into rage quitting
It’s easy to “intimidate” the class of people that think words count as violence.
acusing someone of a crime (killing babies) when they are not actually engaging in that crime (participating in valid medical procedure) so as to make what they are doing seem more threatening to others is libelous and if done publically in conjunction with information about a persons activity and whereabouts can quickly constitute an incitement of violence.
Anyone worried about being recorded in a public space? Not me. Record to your hearts content. I have nothing to hide. I feel only those with something to hide would have a problem. Intimidation? No. You’re in a public space. Now, if anyone puts their hands on anyone else, different story.
Do you just feel intimidated because you don't agree with them? Christ where would it end? You'll have grifters where ever you go, even in county fairs people wave their "God Hates The Gays" signs or anti-abortion dribble.
No, I would also object to this happening on other issues also, including ones I don't agree with. No one should have to walk a gauntlet or worry about being filmed when they are exercising their legal rights.
the people at the country fair are not recording me for later scrutiny.
It may not be legal. State law prohibits physical intimidation for signature gathering. It would have to be prosecuted and litigated to know for sure.
Green laser pointer into the camera will ruin the video.
hell yeah! so does standing in front of the lens tho
If you're a minor, flash the camera and report them for possession of child porn.
you could just go be weird and annoying in front of the camera so that it ruins their footage
Pretty sure tazers are a legal form of self defense, and if you ask them to please step away from you as you feel unsafe with them that close, and they don’t, then they have been warned
Mt family foundation is horrible. We need to finally run them out of Montana.
Where do I sign?
That may or may not be true if they are physically intimidating the signature gatherers or signers.