Man sentenced to prison for using free speech.

[Shelzin]

It's pretty simple.

A kid took his sisters purse at school in the cafeteria (typical family sibling nonsense), the cop tuned him up and there was video of it. Somehow a website called Copblock.org (Muller) got a hold of the video and did some investigating into the incident and recorded some phone calls - he was charged with recording those phone calls under a "wire tapping" law, was found guilty of it and was sentenced to the county jail...

Ok. Then he is guilty of Wire tapping.

What caused the problem is legal, how he dealt with the problem is illegal.

Why so cops can beat up kids???

No... the person who shot the original footage had the right to do so. It was legal.

What happened after the incident was illegal. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be used as evidence... But it was illegal.

 

[Pho_King]

It's pretty simple.

A kid took his sisters purse at school in the cafeteria (typical family sibling nonsense), the cop tuned him up and there was video of it. Somehow a website called Copblock.org (Muller) got a hold of the video and did some investigating into the incident and recorded some phone calls - he was charged with recording those phone calls under a "wire tapping" law, was found guilty of it and was sentenced to the county jail...

Ok. Then he is guilty of Wire tapping.

What caused the problem is legal, how he dealt with the problem is illegal.

Why so cops can beat up kids???

So cops can act like storm troopers??

I'm sure you will think differently when you eventually get fucked by the cops - then your whole train of thought will change.

Around here - you tell a cop you have civil liberties he will tase your ass or fuck you up really nice, but if that shit was caught on video that is "against the law."

Several individuals around my neck of the woods have been beaten to death by police in the last year...

No, nick, it is not against the law to videotape police officers, unless you do it where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Wtf are you talking about?

 

[Uncensored2008]

he is convicted of illegally recording others....

The concept that we can't videotape or record conversations with the police is chilling, to say the least.

 

[Pho_King]

he is convicted of illegally recording others....

The concept that we can't videotape or record conversations with the police is chilling, to say the least.

Luckily, that's not the law. Anywhere.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1) NOT "prison"
from the article:resulting in a net sentence of 85 days at the House of Corrections.

2) He didn't have their permission to be recorded
According to Florida law, he needed to inform them they were being recorded or have an audible tone that indicates recording is taking place.

Just think, if the Rodney King affair occurred today, the man video taping it would go to jail, and the cops would be considered the victims.

What a brave new world we have crafted.

 

[Liability]

The OP is a stupid post. And the guy got sanctioned in Great Britain for his illegal act. Not for speech.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I never said whatever you edited and I am not a sock puppet they can run my ip and see that I have never been registered here before.

So, where did you get your tag line? It seems familiar, somehow......

 

[Mr.Nick]

Ok. Then he is guilty of Wire tapping.

What caused the problem is legal, how he dealt with the problem is illegal.

Why so cops can beat up kids???

So cops can act like storm troopers??

I'm sure you will think differently when you eventually get fucked by the cops - then your whole train of thought will change.

Around here - you tell a cop you have civil liberties he will tase your ass or fuck you up really nice, but if that shit was caught on video that is "against the law."

Several individuals around my neck of the woods have been beaten to death by police in the last year...

No, nick, it is not against the law to videotape police officers, unless you do it where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Wtf are you talking about?

No you're wrong... Here in Illinois individuals were prohibited from taping the cops in public.... You know what public is? anything outside your door...

 

[auditor0007]

UPDATED: Mueller convicted of 3 charges of illegal wiretapping | New Hampshire NEWS03

This is unfuckingbelievable. What the fuck happened to the first amendment....man I actually had hope for New Hampshire.

Yes, this is unfucking believable that someone would be convicted of illegally recording a conversation. I suppose you think the government should have free reign to wiretap everyone's telephone conversation. What an idiot.

 

[Pho_King]

1) NOT "prison"
from the article:resulting in a net sentence of 85 days at the House of Corrections.

2) He didn't have their permission to be recorded
According to Florida law, he needed to inform them they were being recorded or have an audible tone that indicates recording is taking place.

Just think, if the Rodney King affair occurred today, the man video taping it would go to jail, and the cops would be considered the victims.

What a brave new world we have crafted.

Perhaps you explain what part of videotaping the police in the official discharge of their duties might fall under the surreptitious recording statute, or any other criminal statute.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Luckily, that's not the law. Anywhere.

Actually, that is the law nearly everywhere.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess he wasn't as politcally connected as Linda Tripp! She basically got away with the same thing. Don't see where the "free speech" comes in. He was guilty of a breech of privacy. Didn't get much time. If he's going to whine about losing his freedoms, how about the freedoms of the people he wiretapped?

You can only be guilty of a breach of privacy if there is an expectation of privacy. Since the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no expectation of privacy in a public place he could not have breached anyone's privacy by recording them in public.

The article in the OP doesn't state 'where' the recording was done, or 'where' the conversation took place. 'public place' is an assumption.

The recordings took place when he called the police station and the school, I am not assuming anything.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The OP is a stupid post. And the guy got sanctioned in Great Britain for his illegal act. Not for speech.

It was Manchester, New Hampshire. Last I checked, that's in the USA.

 

[Pho_King]

Why so cops can beat up kids???

So cops can act like storm troopers??

I'm sure you will think differently when you eventually get fucked by the cops - then your whole train of thought will change.

Around here - you tell a cop you have civil liberties he will tase your ass or fuck you up really nice, but if that shit was caught on video that is "against the law."

Several individuals around my neck of the woods have been beaten to death by police in the last year...

No, nick, it is not against the law to videotape police officers, unless you do it where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Wtf are you talking about?

No you're wrong... Here in Illinois individuals were prohibited from taping the cops in public.... You know what public is? anything outside your door...

I stand corrected. Very disturbing.

 

[auditor0007]

UPDATED: Mueller convicted of 3 charges of illegal wiretapping | New Hampshire NEWS03

This is unfuckingbelievable. What the fuck happened to the first amendment....man I actually had hope for New Hampshire.

I guess he wasn't as politcally connected as Linda Tripp! She basically got away with the same thing. Don't see where the "free speech" comes in. He was guilty of a breech of privacy. Didn't get much time. If he's going to whine about losing his freedoms, how about the freedoms of the people he wiretapped?

He didn't wiretap anyone. He recorded his conversation with a pig who likes to assault teenagers and the scum school officials who allowed it.



He did inform them he says he edited it out of the video he put on the internet.

A public official has no reasonable expectation of not being taped. They tape our calls to 911 and when we get pulled over but oh that's right we are just the sheeple we must do as told or else.

A high school principal and a school secretary are public officials?

Who knew?

Yes they are. They were also told they were being taped.

If he informed them that they were about to be recorded, then that little bit of info should have also been recorded so he had proof of telling them. With any proof at all, there would not have been a case against him. Show us the proof. You must have a source for your information, right?

 

[Pho_King]

Luckily, that's not the law. Anywhere.

Actually, that is the law nearly everywhere.

No it is not. Only a few states have even contemplated the type of legislation passed in Illinois. And I agree that it is tremendously disturbing.

 

[Liability]

I can't speak about the law EVERYwhere. but in this neck o' the woods, if person A calls person B, with a few exceptions, Person A has zero expectation of privacy and the phone call might very well be legally recorded by Person B.

However, if Person A calls person B, Person A cannot record the conversation.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Ok. Then he is guilty of Wire tapping.

What caused the problem is legal, how he dealt with the problem is illegal.

Why so cops can beat up kids???

No... the person who shot the original footage had the right to do so. It was legal.

What happened after the incident was illegal. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be used as evidence... But it was illegal.

Really so we shouldn't document interactions or events with police??? we should just let them tell their side of the story? you know because they're allegedly honest and such??

Fuck that....

As most republicans say when it comes to the cops putting up cameras on every street corner "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" - why doesn't the same concept apply to the fucking cops???? so they can tape me but I cant tape them???

Then people have the fucking audacity to call this a free country??

 

[Cecilie1200]

I guess he wasn't as politcally connected as Linda Tripp! She basically got away with the same thing. Don't see where the "free speech" comes in. He was guilty of a breech of privacy. Didn't get much time. If he's going to whine about losing his freedoms, how about the freedoms of the people he wiretapped?

He didn't wiretap anyone. He recorded his conversation with a pig who likes to assault teenagers and the scum school officials who allowed it.



He did inform them he says he edited it out of the video he put on the internet.

A high school principal and a school secretary are public officials?

Who knew?

Yes they are. They were also told they were being taped.

If he informed them that they were about to be recorded, then that little bit of info should have also been recorded so he had proof of telling them. With any proof at all, there would not have been a case against him. Show us the proof. You must have a source for your information, right?

The guy said so. That's apparently enough for Dissent, but not for the court, for some reason.

 

[Dr Grump]

UPDATED: Mueller convicted of 3 charges of illegal wiretapping | New Hampshire NEWS03

This is unfuckingbelievable. What the fuck happened to the first amendment....man I actually had hope for New Hampshire.

What is unfuckingbelievable, is that you are so monumentally stupid you confuse illegally recording peoples conversations with free speech.

Mueller was found guilty of secretly recording conversations with Manchester police Capt. Jonathan Hopkins, Manchester High School West Principal MaryEllen McGorry and school secretary Denise Michael without their consent.

If he taped their phones, sure. But if he had a recording device on himself and taped them. So fucking what? Why is that illegal.? You can't tape things now?