Portland Police Temporarily Barred From Live-Streaming Protests



... and here in Seattle, where Seattle Police were not turning body cams on at protests, consistent with City law prohibiting police from filming protesters, for the very reasons cited in the injunction in Portland, protesters have been demanding that police body cameras be on, all the time.

Get your story straight protesters!


These are the folks that claim to have a logically consistent and achievable plan to defund the police, shift the funding to other interventions, and maintain or improve current levels of public safety. (I am not opposed, if they have evidenced-based solutions, but they aren't inspiring confidence by being on opposite sides of the same issue in this case).


Live streaming ≠ body cam on.


I guess we can add film theory to the list of academic disciplines our trolls have never even heard of.

Don't worry guy, your STEM still makes you better than everyone else.


Police body cams and full transparency is a good thing, except when it exposes the criminal activity of the domestic terrorist wing of the Radical Left Democrat Party.
Everyone should already know that...


@5 Body cams, according to the studies we're accumulating, are no guarantee of full transparency, or anything like it really. That's why a lot of people who care about stopping unaccountable police killings of Black people no longer advocate body cams as a solution to the problem, which you would of course know if you were listening to them instead of listening to those demon caricatures you make up in your head to keep yourself awake at night.


Last night no fed goons and no cop interference and the protest in Portland was 100% non-violent and non-destructive. Imagine that. People exercising their First Amendment rights to gather and protest police brutality and the murder of Black people by the police, peacefully and without incident. All that had to be done was to REMOVE THE FED GOONS AND THE COPS FROM THE EQUATION. Simple.

The live streaming had nothing to do with body cams. It had to do with using video streams (such as on woke.net) to identify and harass and arrest protesters. Protesting is not illegal. Until the right wing nutjobs who like to the authoritarian knees on their necks (or rather on other people's necks) get that through their thick, brainless skulls, cops are going to have to be told again and again how to behave. They don't know how to do it. They actively and purposefully refuse to behave. They do whatever they want because they get away with it. Until they do NOT get away with it 100% of the time, until they behave 100% of the time, they need to be controlled, defunded, called out, and held accountable for their bad (usually illegal and violent) behavior.


Live streaming ≠ body cam on.


So why do the media get obstructed from taping, harassed, and attacked? Simply because their documenting potentially prosecutorial behavior?

If so, that's a sad change in the history of great American protesting. The media should be an integral component for social change, as it was in the 1960's. The media was seen as an ally by the protesters, not a foe.


There is a difference between surveillance, for which Washington State and Oregon have specific constitutional rights of privacy in relation to, and police body cameras being on when they are starting an arrest or action.

You don't have a right to stream worldwide my being in a park or on a street.

You do have a right to record the images when you're using your police powers, but then they are subject to discovery in full by defendents and also passers-by.

Just because your camera is on, doesn't mean you can post a pic of my dog watering the bushes if it's not part of your arrest, and definitely not identifying information as to me the dog owner who has nothing to do with your probably illegal arrest.


@7, If there isn't probable cause of a crime on these videos the arrests don't stick and the lawsuits are lucrative. So "using videos to identify, harrass and arrest," is a false argument. Protesters have nothing to fear if all of their activities are lawful. Additionally, there is no expectations of privacy in public places, per centuries of court rulings. Anyone can photograph or record anyone, for any reason, or no reason, in public. That extends to the government.


@11 nope. "nothing to fear if their activities are lawful." protesting is lawful. being profiled and cops using video to go after people protesting is unlawful. there is expectation that you are allowed to gather in public, protest (protected by the First Amendment) and not be profiled for it. it does NOT extend to the government as the police have been reprimanded for doing so. please do try to keep up. i realize when you're twisting yourself into a pretzel to rationalize your bullshit it is difficult.


@10, The protesters sought and got an injunction AGAINST FILMING. They didn't limit their case to broadcast. So your argument doesn't conform to the facts.

Seattle protesters fought to have body cams on at all times, when they were off by City policy, to prevent intelligence gathering on people doing nothing illegal.

So which way do they want it?


you can blather on as much as you want, it is not legal for cops to videotape protesters and use that videotape to harass or arrest people who participated in the protests. i realize you are just going to say the same thing over and over and argue, believing you are right. you are not right. no matter how many times you say it. there is a literally a metric ton of precedence against it. your refusal to accept reality does not make it cease to exist.



@12, If they are being profiled and gone after for lawful protesting, then how are the arrests being upheld at probable cause hearings? The latter can't be true, if the police and prosecutors can't substantiate probable cause of a crime. If cases get kicked like that in significant percentages, then lawsuits by those arested follow.


again, this is NOT about body cams.


The defense gets to see video by the police of their client. If it exonerates their client, they will use it at the hearing.


@15, Yes it is. The Plaintiff's suit specifically seeks to have them off. The judge's injunction includes them.

Seattle protesters, who did not have to go to court to get City agreement, want them on all the time.


@14/16 a preliminary hearing usually consists of the prosecutor presenting an affidavit stating they have probable cause. There is not generally a chance for the defense to respond to evidence. Those released are given the chance of waiting a few days to see a judge for a bail hearing or waive that and get conditional release on OR in a few hours.

Most of the arrests have resulted in the protesters being released on OR and not formally charged. As of a couple days ago only 50 of the 200 arrested have been charged. Of that 50 18 are for disorderly conduct. Most of these people will never be charged.

There have been some felony assault charges but neither the arrest reports or the charging documents names the specific officers involved or the situation or description of what happened. It stated simply that they have evidence the suspect assaulted an officer. That’s all it took to charge them and start proceedings.

A bunch of angry, untrained cops assaulted and violated the rights of people that were legally allowed to be there. A few are legit busts, arsons, property damage and some provable assaults. Most though are affronts to our rights and should not be tolerated


"If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" said by every conservative ever - usually right before some POC who's done nothing wrong gets shot or asphyxiated by a cop...


@19, Portland protesters = we don't want police to film us. Seattle protesters = we demand you film us. Which way is it?


@7, @12, @14a, and @15 xina and @19 COMTE for the tied WIN! Bravo and kudos on being so consistently spot on.


@20: FOX TeeVee and Sinclair Broadcasting are not reliable news sources, lil MAGA.


The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.




@20 Haven't you heard that the states are the laboratories of democracy?

You're the one who has constructed that silly puzzle - you solve it.


Body cams should theoretically function as a layer of accountability for officer conduct. Sometimes get "accidentally" turned off, accidentally deleted during the upload process, or "lost in the shuffle" of all items required to be turned over to the defense. In Rahm Emmanual's Chicago, the cops shot a kid like 13 times while he was running away, it was all captured on body cams, and it took years and several lawsuits to finally release the footage. And once a defendant is arrested and jailed, it is a little late in the game if it results in prolonged incarceration, job loss, etc. Motions for discovery and motions to suppress do not succeed all of the time.

So public recording and broadcasting a lawful protest BY THE POLICE is totally different. Especially if it is done, as seems likely, to determine the identity of "leaders." Then you could have unmarked feds picking them up and taking them in unmarked vehicles to undisclosed locations, as has been happening. Just like Trump warned that Obama would do. And just like Pinochet did to Allende's supporters in '73. Some freedom!


@OTP -- oh, extrodinary rendition's become quite the Fad -- ALL the (Self-professed) "Patriots" are standing behind it.


... for the commies, socialists, Lib-Progs, off-Whites homos, etc, oh and malcontents. Duh.


FOX TeeVee and Sinclair Broadcasting and The Stranger are not reliable news sources