Man sentenced to prison for using free speech.

[bripat9643]

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.

Your choice of words makes it emphatically clear that your are a groveling servile toady who loves the taste of boot polish.

You aren't even a member of the mammal family. You're a slimy little reptile.

 

[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.

Your choice of words makes it emphatically clear that your are a groveling servile toady who loves the taste of boot polish.

You aren't even a member of the mammal family. You're a slimy little reptile.

**** you and **** your insecurities. No one cares about your weakness.

 

[Shelzin]

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.

Or presidents?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong again, as usual.

Searches and seizures by government employers or supervisors of the private property of their employees are subject to Fourth Amendment restraints. An expectation of privacy in one's place of work is based upon societal expectations that have deep roots in the history of the Amendment.

The strictures of the Fourth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, have been applied to the conduct of governmental officials in various civil activities. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 334 -335 (1985). Thus, we have held in the past that the Fourth Amendment governs the conduct of school officials, see ibid., building inspectors, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528 (1967), and Occupational Safety and Health [480 U.S. 709, 715] Act inspectors, see Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 312 -313 (1978). As we observed in T. L. O., "ecause the individual's interest in privacy and personal security `suffers whether the government's motivation is to investigate violations of criminal laws or breaches of other statutory or regulatory standards,'. . . it would be `anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.'" 469 U.S., at 335 (quoting Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., supra, at 312-313 and Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, at 530). Searches and seizures by government employers or supervisors of the private property of their employees, therefore, are subject to the restraints of the Fourth Amendment.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[Dissent]

State Legislator: NH Governor Should Pardon Jailed Transparency Activist

 

[Shelzin]

State Legislator: NH Governor Should Pardon Jailed Transparency Activist

*shrugs* I agree with him.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Really show me in the Bill of Rights where it infringes on anothers rights when they're recorded on a phone call?

It's not that it Infringes on their Rights, It is state law in Most States that you CAN not Record someone with out Consent, or a WARRANT.

The cops can wire tap me so why cant I wire tap them??

The Cops need a Reason, and A judge to sign off on that Reason in the Form of a Warrant for a Wire Tap before they can Wire Tap you.

I find it ironic how republicans are the biggest supporters of alleged freedoms but then turn around and let the cops do whatever the **** they want...

The cops can not do what ever the **** they want Dim Witt, they have very strict Rules they have to play buy, As I said they have to have a good reason to want to Wire Tap you, then they need to Convince a Judge there is good Reason, and get a Warrant.

Actually warrentless taps and listening is NOT illegal. It may be done without permission from a court. The caveat is anything recorded cannot be used in a court of law. It is inadmissible as evidence.
Now, if listening or gathering/intercepting/pirating/hacking data for criminal purposes is confirmed, that falls under "wire fraud".

 

[thereisnospoon]

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??

**** 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 ******* cops???? so they can tape me but I cant tape them???

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

Well, just as the public is under surveillance at the same kind, so are the cops. Cameras do not exclude certain people.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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 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 ******* what? Why is that illegal.? You can't tape things now?

One may record in person.
To record an electronic conversation, Notice is required if the person doing the recording initiated the communication.
Quite frankly, any one may record anyone at any time. Our devices have outraced the respective legislatures ability to keep up with the technology.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Or presidents?

Of course. Romney's tax returns aren't "interactions with the public."

 

[Mr.Nick]

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?

Yeah, they're called public sector employees....

Public sector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

You mean like OWS??? how they impeded people from their RIGHT to go to work or their RIGHT to go to a park THEY PAY FOR?? or their RIGHT to go on with their everyday lives??

Shut the **** up you partisan hack..

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

{Anthony Graber, a Maryland Air National Guard staff sergeant, faces up to 16 years in prison. His crime? He videotaped his March encounter with a state trooper who pulled him over for speeding on a motorcycle. Then Graber put the video — which could put the officer in a bad light — up on YouTube.

It doesn't sound like much. But Graber is not the only person being slapped down by the long arm of the law for the simple act of videotaping the police in a public place. Prosecutors across the U.S. claim the videotaping violates wiretap laws — a stretch, to put it mildly.}

Should Videotaping the Police Really Be a Crime? - TIME

One thing the police cannot survive is exposure - they will do whatever it takes to keep the public from knowing how they really operate.

After Fullerton Police murdered Kelly Thomas last year, several Fullerton cops were on the Metrolink laughing about it and doing pantomimes of Thomas begging for them to stop, as they brutally beat him to death. As they murdered Thomas, they had gone around threatening anyone at the Fullerton train station who was capturing video, but a couple of people escaped their notice. Because the public caught this on video, this is the one in a million murders by Police that might just be prosecuted.

That has to stop. Law makes owe to the people to use electronic information gathering to protect themselves.
With today's technology, the Fourth Amendment is becoming THE amendment.
This guarantees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Sixth guarantees the right to due process.
So, if the police misbehave, we must have the right to gather information which proves this. Laws which prohibit this are in my opinion open to Constitutional challenge. The question is, when will this challenge go before the SCOTUS. Until it does, laws banning the recording of police in the course of their duties will continue to be enforced and offenders prosecuted.

 

[bripat9643]

What does that have to do with recording a conversation? There's no personal property involved.

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.

Wrong again, as usual.

Searches and seizures by government employers or supervisors of the private property of their employees are subject to Fourth Amendment restraints. An expectation of privacy in one's place of work is based upon societal expectations that have deep roots in the history of the Amendment.

The strictures of the Fourth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, have been applied to the conduct of governmental officials in various civil activities. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 334 -335 (1985). Thus, we have held in the past that the Fourth Amendment governs the conduct of school officials, see ibid., building inspectors, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528 (1967), and Occupational Safety and Health [480 U.S. 709, 715] Act inspectors, see Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 312 -313 (1978). As we observed in T. L. O., "ecause the individual's interest in privacy and personal security `suffers whether the government's motivation is to investigate violations of criminal laws or breaches of other statutory or regulatory standards,'. . . it would be `anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.'" 469 U.S., at 335 (quoting Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., supra, at 312-313 and Camara v. Municipal Court, supra, at 530). Searches and seizures by government employers or supervisors of the private property of their employees, therefore, are subject to the restraints of the Fourth Amendment.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[Full-Auto]

Damnest thing, Ive seen both left and Right say its OK to send the guy to jail.

WTF???

If you are afraid to say something, Shut your pie hole.........

 

[Shelzin]

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.

You mean like OWS???

I'm not sure how you are referencing it into this subject.

how they impeded people from their RIGHT to go to work

Yeah... You can't control other people. You can control yourself. If you are late once or twice to work sure... You can blame it on OWS. After that it's just your own fault.

or their RIGHT to go to a park THEY PAY FOR??

It's my understanding that no one impeded their right to go to the park.

their RIGHT to go on with their everyday lives??

*blink*blink*

Ok... Now that was just stupid.

Shut the **** up you partisan hack..

*laughs*

I'll say what I want, when I want, however I want to do it. There is nothing you can do about it if I'm not infringing on your rights. If this upsets you I strongly suggest you put me on ignore. It'll only get worse from here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Sorry but it's not a protected right to illegally listen in on someone else's conversation.

 

[bripat9643]

Sorry but it's not a protected right to illegally listen in on someone else's conversation.

ROFL! How do you avoid "listening in" when you're a party to the conversation? Laws that prevent you from recording conversations of which you are a participant can only have the intent of protecting law breakers and corrupt government officials.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry but it's not a protected right to illegally listen in on someone else's conversation.

ROFL! How do you avoid "listening in" when you're a party to the conversation? Laws that prevent you from recording conversations of which you are a participant can only have the intent of protecting law breakers and corrupt government officials.

When you are party to the conversation you must advise the person that you are recording the conversation.

 

[Full-Auto]

Sorry but it's not a protected right to illegally listen in on someone else's conversation.

ROFL! How do you avoid "listening in" when you're a party to the conversation? Laws that prevent you from recording conversations of which you are a participant can only have the intent of protecting law breakers and corrupt government officials.

When you are party to the conversation you must advise the person that you are recording the conversation.

Then it should be a civil matter and not criminal. 1/2 ownership of said conversation is the issue