Police can record us up close and personal, but we can't keep tabs on them, especially if lawfully armed?
“HB 2918 is meant to protect officers, NOT restrict the ability to keep them accountable,” Texas State Representative Jason Villalba tweeted in response to critics of his bill mandating members of the public to keep set distances away from a peace officer exercising authority. “It DOES NOT prohibit filming.”
Responders on Villalba’s Twitter feed were, to put it mildly, not convinced, prompting him to double down and tweet again about his interview on Time Warner Cable News Austin “Capital Tonight,” in which he denied wanting to limit anyone by “creating a halo.” He presented his bill as a “reasonable measure” and as “common sense,” something law enforcement had asked him for so that they aren't endangered.
“All we’re trying to do is get them [people video-recording police activities] to back down a few feet,” he insisted.
Not quite. Villalba’s bill makes “interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference” a crime that includes “filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 25 feet of the officer,” and “filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 100 feet of the officer while carrying a handgun,” just in case there are any lawful concealed carry permit holders who also happen to be interested in documenting police activities to ensure accountability. And as written, the bill appears to criminalize the act of recording one's own interactions with police.
There are, of course, the typical exemptions, privileged categories I call “Only Ones” (my designation for members of law enforcement demonstrating Lee Paige elitism) and “Authorized Journalists” (sometimes referred to as “Fourth Estate Fifth Columnists.”) The "official" press category raises special concerns for those of us who are part of alternative -- as opposed to establishment -- media. That’s because HB 2918 defines “news media” as “a radio or television station that holds a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission; a newspaper that is qualified under Section 2051.044, Government Code, to publish legal notices or is a free newspaper of general circulation and that is published at least once a week and available and of interest to the general public in connection with the dissemination of news or public affairs; or a magazine that appears at a regular interval, that contains stories, articles, and essays by various writers, and that is available and of interest to the general public in connection with the dissemination of news or public affairs.”
That fits in nicely with Joe Biden’s designation of flacks for administration citizen disarmament edicts as “legitimate media,” and Dianne Feinstein’s characterization of them, for shield law protection exclusivity, as “real reporters.” It also reinforces the caste snobbery exemplified by Juan Williams, dismissing anyone not enjoying his seat at the insiders' table as “a blogger,” and thus his inferior in status.
“Thank god for the BLOGGERS who broke open the #fastandfurious scandal & paved the way for #realreporters to follow,” blogger, author and political commentator Michelle Malkin tweeted to Williams, eliciting rousing agreement that escalated to a trending phenomenon.
She was right on point, as this chronicle of the first days of “Project Gunwalker” investigative journalism by Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars and this column documents. Look at the developments that were reported on (and sometimes generated) before anyone from Williams’ world gave the story the time of day, and then note how few in the establishment press made any significant contributions to the investigation, as opposed to showing deliberate indifference or acting as administration apologists and enablers.
As one of the two “mere” bloggers banging pots and pans to get that noticed, I take personal exception to government issuing de facto press licenses with criminal penalties should an independent upstart act like all he has rights, too -- probably because I was once threatened with arrest for daring to ask a question of a public figure at a public press conference. I was again threatened by a U.S. Marshal for reporting on ATF inspector harassment of a gun shop, and had to defy ATF when they complained to a judge and presumed to define who could cover their activities.
Meanwhile, "progressive" attorney Dusty Horwitt proposed a (you guessed it) “progressive” tax on the internet because all those citizen journalists “siphon audiences and revenues from newspapers.”
Note to Jason Villalba: You don’t get to determine who an authorized journalist is. You don’t get to decide how citizen oversight of law enforcement actions will be conducted. You don’t get to insult and persecute lawfully-armed citizens by painting them as an extraordinary threat warranting special penalties should they cross inside your stupid wandering gun-free “halo” zone.
If a police officer is performing his duty and decides someone is interfering with it, he will need to respond to each situation as it happens and then decide if further action on his part is lawfully justified. You don’t get to impose invisible shields via prior restraints on their behalf. And if voters in your district are wise, you won’t get to treat their rights as secondary to the desire of public employees to complicate scrutiny of their activities.
Politician, you’re sucking up to the wrong constituency.