1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. rec.arts.tv

  • [OT] N. Carolina embosses a new Asterisk: cops and body cams (fwd)

    From danny burstein@dannyb@panix.com to rec.arts.tv on Thu Oct 8 19:56:27 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    lots of threads here about similar Constitutional abuse,
    so I figured I'd post this..

    [Reason]

    North Carolina Woman Doesn't Have First Amendment Right to Publish Video of Cop
    Shooting Her Dogs, Court Rules

    A North Carolina state trooper shot Lydia Nikac's two dogs, but an appeals court ruled she doesn't have a right to publish body camera footage of the shooting under the state's restrictive public records laws.
    ======
    rest:

    https://reason.com/2026/10/08/north-carolina-woman-doesnt-have-first-amendment-right-to-publish-video-of-cop-shooting-her-dogs-court-rules/


    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Adam H. Kerman@ahk@chinet.com to rec.arts.tv on Thu Oct 8 20:24:55 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

    danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

    lots of threads here about similar Constitutional abuse,
    so I figured I'd post this..

    [Reason]

    North Carolina Woman Doesn't Have First Amendment Right to Publish Video
    of Cop Shooting Her Dogs, Court Rules

    A North Carolina state trooper shot Lydia Nikac's two dogs, but an appeals >court ruled she doesn't have a right to publish body camera footage of the >shooting under the state's restrictive public records laws.
    ======
    rest:

    https://reason.com/2026/10/08/north-carolina-woman-doesnt-have-first-amendment-right-to-publish-video-of-cop-shooting-her-dogs-court-rules/

    It's outrageous that the petitioner must establish a compeeling public
    interest to publish footage. I sure don't see a legal basis for the
    police to assert control over a legally-obtained copy. There wouldn't a copyright-holder interest as the public already owns copyright.
    --- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2