Man sentenced to prison for using free speech.

[Sallow]

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

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

That's not free speech.

In any way shape or form.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I thought you were talking about the cop. You obviously aren't following the thread very well.

Dude, the thread is about people being put in jail for videotaping cops. Fullerton Cops recently murdered Kelly Thomas and got caught on video.

See the connection? Cops don't want to get caught when they engage in crime, so they want to put people in jail who expose them on Youtube and such.

Old boy didn't get in trouble for video taping in a public area. He got in trouble for taping a phone call.

Did you even read the article? These were face to face meetings. Mueller videotaped the meetings and put them on Youtube to expose the beating of a student at the Manchester high school in New Hampshire.

I suggest you reread the thread.

I suggest you read the article, for the first time.

Nothing I can say will make you less ignorant if you don't go through the work to educate yourself. Reread the thread.

That is the angle you are taking?

I support the old Republic, and the constitution it was founded on.

We have differing views.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sure you can. You just have to announce that you are doing it.

Why?

The 5th amendment...?

To be honest I'm not entirely sure. Not something I've thought about to any great extent...

It should not be. I understand when the police (or whoever for that matter) needs a warrant to tap into YOUR phone and record a conversation that they have no idea your ease dropping in on. It makes zero sense though when you are talking about the two individuals on the phone. I see zero reason that one of the two parties cannot record the call for whatever reason they damn well want and they should have no prerogative to tell you what they are doing. You are having the conversation with them after all.

As far as the police go, this should be even more true as they should be held to a far higher standard. Police should always be recorded while perusing their duties, it is the only way to protect the people from police that are given a LOT of power over them.

 

[FA_Q2]

As far as the article goes, I did not see where it mentioned anything about these conversations being on the phone or in person. All it said was they were over a video that had been recorded earlier. Nothing at all about the actual conversations that were in question.

 

[Liability]

Just to remind folks: the OP headline is (at best) wrong.

The guy did not get sanctioned for using free speech at all.

He got sanctioned for breaking the law.

Disagreement with that law is all well and good, but lets not pretend that his punishment came for something other than what it did come for.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just to remind folks: the OP headline is (at best) wrong.

The guy did not get sanctioned for using free speech at all.

He got sanctioned for breaking the law.

He was put in jail for exposing the police for beating an underage high school student.

Disagreement with that law is all well and good, but lets not pretend that his punishment came for something other than what it did come for.

Putting people in jail for videotaping the police is a bit more than "disagreement," it's pissing on the constitution.

When the first was written, the printing press was the technology for exposing corruption and criminal acts by the ruling authorities. Now we have video, but the principle that we can NOT prohibit freedom of the press, now video, remains paramount.

The ONLY check we have to the encroaching authoritarianism of our government is exposure, detailing and communicating what they are doing. IF you succeed and those who expose wrongdoing by the government are imprisoned, rather than the wrong doers, then any hope of liberty is lost.

 

[Liability]

Just to remind folks: the OP headline is (at best) wrong.

The guy did not get sanctioned for using free speech at all.

He got sanctioned for breaking the law.

He was put in jail for exposing the police for beating an underage high school student.

Disagreement with that law is all well and good, but lets not pretend that his punishment came for something other than what it did come for.

Putting people in jail for videotaping the police is a bit more than "disagreement," it's pissing on the constitution.

When the first was written, the printing press was the technology for exposing corruption and criminal acts by the ruling authorities. Now we have video, but the principle that we can NOT prohibit freedom of the press, now video, remains paramount.

The ONLY check we have to the encroaching authoritarianism of our government is exposure, detailing and communicating what they are doing. IF you succeed and those who expose wrongdoing by the government are imprisoned, rather than the wrong doers, then any hope of liberty is lost.

Whether or not your point is valid is not the discussion.

The point remains, he was not sanctioned for expressing any speech at all.

He was sanctioned for breaking a law.

NOW if you wish to discuss the wisdom, validity, undesirability, unConstitutionality etc OF that law, it would be a good topic for a thread that has it AS the topic.

 

[Shelzin]

Just to remind folks: the OP headline is (at best) wrong.

The guy did not get sanctioned for using free speech at all.

He got sanctioned for breaking the law.

He was put in jail for exposing the police for beating an underage high school student.

No... He was not.

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.

Mueller, who co-founded CopBlock.org, was seeking their comments on a video he posted on YouTube last Oct. 3. It showed a confrontation between West High student Frank Harrington III, 17, and police detective Darren Murphy in the school's cafeteria. Harrington was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. A police department internal review concluded Murphy did not use excessive force.[/b]

Disagreement with that law is all well and good, but lets not pretend that his punishment came for something other than what it did come for.

Putting people in jail for videotaping the police is a bit more than "disagreement," it's pissing on the constitution.

Umm... Yeah... videotaping didn't have anything to do with him going to jail other it's the reason he illegally wire tapped the phone conversation about the videotaping.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No... He was not.

Yes, as a matter of FACT, he was.

Mueller was found guilty of secretly recording conversations with Manchester police Capt. Jonathan Hopkins,

What was the nature of that conversation, sparky?

Manchester High School West Principal MaryEllen McGorry and school secretary Denise Michael without their consent.

Conversation about WHAT, specifically?

Mueller, who co-founded CopBlock.org, was seeking their comments on a video he posted on YouTube last Oct. 3. It showed a confrontation between West High student Frank Harrington III, 17, and police detective Darren Murphy in the school's cafeteria. Harrington was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. A police department internal review concluded Murphy did not use excessive force.

Murphy beat Harrington by picking him up and slamming his face into a table.

Umm... Yeah... videotaping didn't have anything to do with him going to jail other it's the reason he illegally wire tapped the phone conversation about the videotaping.

"Wire tapped" in the form of recording the conversations, which WERE incriminating, using the video recorder of a cell phone - then he posted the video on Youtube.

He exposed the police, so he was thrown in prison.

 

[Shelzin]

No... He was not.

Yes, as a matter of FACT, he was.

No.. in FACT he was not.

Mueller was found guilty of secretly recording conversations with Manchester police Capt. Jonathan Hopkins,

What was the nature of that conversation, sparky?

The legal charges were the phone conversion after the fact, not what is on the tape there sparky.

Conversation about WHAT, specifically?

Mueller, who co-founded CopBlock.org, was seeking their comments on a video he posted on YouTube last Oct. 3.

yes.. After the fact. The video was legal. The taped telephone conversation was not. Am I going to fast for you?

Umm... Yeah... videotaping didn't have anything to do with him going to jail other it's the reason he illegally wire tapped the phone conversation about the videotaping.

"Wire tapped" in the form of recording the conversations, which WERE incriminating, using the video recorder of a cell phone - then he posted the video on Youtube.

That is where you are incorrect. The wire tapping was from a phone call after the video was taken, not what is on the video.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The legal charges were the phone conversion after the fact, not what is on the tape there sparky.

Run, run away....

yes.. After the fact. The video was legal. The taped telephone conversation was not. Am I going to fast for you?

So, the conversation that Mueller video taped was about the police slamming the face of a minor into a table after picking said minor several feet up above said table, then?

So the police basically stated that abuse was part of their general operating procedure, and that if Mueller attempted to expose them, they would "get him?"

 

[Shelzin]

The legal charges were the phone conversion after the fact, not what is on the tape there sparky.

Run, run away....

Why would I do that?

yes.. After the fact. The video was legal. The taped telephone conversation was not. Am I going to fast for you?

So, the conversation that Mueller video taped was about the police slamming the face of a minor into a table after picking said minor several feet up above said table, then?

Yes it was.

So the police basically stated that abuse was part of their general operating procedure, and that if Mueller attempted to expose them, they would "get him?"

I don't know I didn't get to listen to the phone call that was illegal.

Old boy didn't go to jail for video taping the incident. He's going to jail because he recorded a phone call without the other entity knowing about it. How hard is that to understand?

 

[FA_Q2]

Just to remind folks: the OP headline is (at best) wrong.

The guy did not get sanctioned for using free speech at all.

He got sanctioned for breaking the law.

He was put in jail for exposing the police for beating an underage high school student.

No... He was not.

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.

Mueller, who co-founded CopBlock.org, was seeking their comments on a video he posted on YouTube last Oct. 3. It showed a confrontation between West High student Frank Harrington III, 17, and police detective Darren Murphy in the school's cafeteria. Harrington was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. A police department internal review concluded Murphy did not use excessive force.[/b]

Disagreement with that law is all well and good, but lets not pretend that his punishment came for something other than what it did come for.

Putting people in jail for videotaping the police is a bit more than "disagreement," it's pissing on the constitution.

Umm... Yeah... videotaping didn't have anything to do with him going to jail other it's the reason he illegally wire tapped the phone conversation about the videotaping.

True but I think what uncensored is getting at (or at least what I am getting from this conversation) is that he was targeted by the police for this particular offence because it makes them look bad and they did not like it. TBH, I completely agree with that sentiment. As stated earlier, I don’t see why it should be illegal anyway to record conversations in this context. It is dishonest and speaks of corruption.

 

[Noomi]

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

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

What part of:

was found guilty of illegal wiretapping

do you not understand?

 

[bripat9643]

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

This is unfuckingbelievable. What the **** 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?

Government employees have no expectation of privacy when they are on the clock.

 

[bripat9643]

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 the are, dipshit. They are government employees. the idea that the public doesn't have the right to know what they are saying when performing their official duties is utterly preposterous.

 

[bripat9643]

So if your father was a cop would it be okay if I tapped your home phone? Afterall he's a public employee paid by the taxpayers.

Were calls to their homes taped or calls to their place of business taped?

 

[Unkotare]

Pigs can break law and get a slap on the wrist man records legit conversations gets locked up by the nazi police state.

Well, your choice of words makes it pretty clear that you are some greasy little worm who hates authority because, due to your lack of self control, you've never had any and never will. Crawl back into your kennel, cur.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Your rights and liberties end when you infringe on another persons rights and liberties.

Cops and school officials have no right to keep their interactions with the public a secret.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

lol, So you think the First Amendment means you can illegally Record other people with out their Knowledge?

jackass

No, the First Amendment means it shouldn't be illegal to record government employees performing their official duties.