The Australien Government has made a tourism ad about East Timor, and it’s surprisingly honest and informative!
Ted Cruz finally CONFRONTED at restaurant after NRA speech
BREAKING: Ted Cruz was just confronted TO HIS FACE at a restaurant after his NRA speech.
Comments
When a “free man” in America can’t voice his opinion to a politician that is supposed to represent him -he and we are living in a tyranny .
I love how politicians always have dinner parties with supporters for hours but never have 15 minutes to listen to a constituent that disagrees. Yes, this man bothered his dinner, but when else can voters that want him to represent their perspectives share their thoughts? And in a nutshell that is why America is fucked up and unrecoverable. Group think and echo chambers are all we have left.
European Law prohibits filming the police in Davos
Saagar takes viewers through the agenda of the 2022 World Economic Forum held in Davos that made speech restriction and controls on free speech central to the agenda for the world to see
Original: YouTube
Video Comments
- Right. The irony is that while you can’t film anyone without their consent, the overlords will be recording your every move using facial recognition software in fully automated cities.
- If it wasn’t for Sagaar I wouldn’t have found out that the WEF is in fact a privately owned organisation, that peddles (and makes lots of money from) providing corporate access to government officials. I am grateful he’s pointed out what an Australian government official has said at DAVOS because its NOT being covered here at all.
More Research:
I wanted to know whether Sagaar was reporting an isolated incident or taking things out of context so I did more research. Here are some of the top search results for:
- Google Search: europe can’t film the police privacy
What the Law Says About Filming the Police in Europe
In some countries, moves are afoot to curtail documenting police actions.
Spain in 2015 enacted the Citizen Security Law (better known as the gag law) that threatens a hefty fine for the unauthorized publication and dissemination of images of the police.
In Belgium, a video blogger is appealing a €300 fine imposed by a court for filming and uploading two police officers’ response to an incident at a café, which in the court’s view violated their privacy. The Belgian interior minister is reportedly considering a formal legal ban.
The lower house of the Dutch parliament recently adopted a motion calling for a change in the law that would result in the prohibition of the publication of recognizable images of police officers.
.. The right to film or photograph the police is a key safeguard of human rights and civil liberties in situations, particularly in situations that present a high risk of violations, such as stop-and-search operations, identity checks, or protests. Activists have argued that filming the police in action is a way to de-escalate tensions and potential violence, as the police officer is forced to behave in accordance with the law. Where abuses do occur, victims often find their version of events will not be believed unless video and photo evidence are available to support their claim against the police.
Can I film the police in Germany?
There is no exception for police officers1, 2. The rules described above also apply to them1. You can’t share photos or videos of police officers without getting their permission or blurring their faces.
What happens if I don’t follow the rules?
The punishment is a fine, or up to 2 years in prison1, 2. People rarely go to prison, but fines and lawsuits are common1. In some cases, your camera can be confiscated1.
The subject of the photo can sue for damages1. They have 3 years to do this1. The 3 year period starts from the last time the picture was distributed1. Both the photographer and the publisher (including websites) can be sued1. You might have to pay for the victim’s legal costs1, 2.
Can I just blur people’s faces?
No. You must make sure that the person can’t be recognised1. For example, tattoos, clothes, hair styles and jewellery can be used to recognise a person, even if their face is blurred1.
The new French law that restricts photos and videos of police officers
What is the bill?
The proposed law, Loi relative à la sécurité globale (law on global security) is a major piece of security legislation covering issues regarding policing in France, several of which have drawn criticism.
.. Most controversial is the bill’s clause 24, which would criminalise the publishing of any photos or videos where a police officer or gendarme could be recognised, if there is an intent to harm their “physical or psychological integrity”.
It’s similar to a bill that came before the parliament in the spring, which failed to pass, but this time it has been backed by the Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin.
“My job as interior minister is to protect those who protect us,” Darmanin told BFMTV.
“I had made a promise, that it would no longer be possible to broadcast the image of the police and gendarmes on social media. That promise will be kept,” the interior minister said.
more: politico.eu
European Union Court finding:
The defendant, Sergejs Buivids, made a video recording inside a Latvian police station whilst he was there giving a statement in connection with administrative proceedings that had been initiated against him. The video showed the police facilities and a number of police officers going about their duties. Mr Buivids then published the video on YouTube.
.. Further, there is no express exception in the Directive excluding the processing of personal data of public officials, and case law shows that the fact that information is provided as part of a professional activity does not mean that it cannot be characterised as “personal data”.
According to case law, “journalistic activities” are those that have as their purpose the disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas, irrespective of the medium used to transmit them.
The CJEU said that it was for the referring court to determine whether “journalistic activities” applied here, but the CJEU could still provide guidance.
The question for the Latvian court was whether the sole purpose of the recording and publication of the video was the disclosure to the public of information, opinions or ideas. To that end, it should take into account Mr Buivids’s argument that the video was published online to draw attention to alleged police malpractice, which he claimed occurred while he was making his statement. However, establishing malpractice was not a condition for the applicability of Article 9.
In this case, the CJEU said, it was possible that the recording and publication of the video, which took place without the persons concerned being informed, amounted to interference with their right to privacy.
Filming Police on Duty in the UK
The police have no power to stop you filming or photographing officers on duty. Recording film footage on a police incident, or taking photographs of their actions, is not illegal.
But, you must follow some basic guidelines..
Some English photographers have been stopped and searched using the “terrorism” loophole.
European Law prohibits filming the police in Davos
Saagar takes viewers through the agenda of the 2022 World Economic Forum held in Davos that made speech restriction and controls on free speech central to the agenda for the world to see
This is a perfect example of DC journalist minds set. People reporting on World Economic Forum were labeled Conspiracy Theorists because it was the easier way to discredit them. Not everyone reporting on this is a Alex Jones wanna be 😂>> Same thing in Greece.>> Try filming a cop in Mexico.>> So basically….get caught filming a cop in Italy – lose a $1000 phone. Get caught filming and or just releasing US soldiers commit war crimes – lose a 1000 years of your freedom.>> @Keith D. Right. The irony is that while you can’t film anyone without their consent, the overlords will be recording your every move using facial recognition software in fully automated cities. Minority Report was a sci-fi preview of what they have been working on for years now.
You Just Can’t Tell the Truth About America Anymore
There is a dangerous censoriousness pulsing through American society. In small towns and big cities alike, would-be commissars are fighting, in the name of a distinct minority of Americans, to stifle open discussion and impose their views on the community at large. Dissenters, when they speak out, are hounded, ostracized and sometimes even forced from their jobs.
Defenders of this push for censorship say they are simply working to protect the nation’s children from prejudice, psychological distress and inappropriate material. “To say there were slaves is one thing, but to talk in detail about how slaves were treated, and with photos, is another,” said Tina Descovich, a leader of Moms for Liberty, a conservative group that seeks to enshrine “parental rights” into law. Descovich was speaking to The Washington Post in defense of Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, who is spearheading an effort to censor educators who teach, or even raise, certain politically incorrect issues in their classrooms.
One of these bills would give parents and state regulators broad authority to ban books or teachings that cause “discomfort” in students, and would put lessons on “the Civil War, the expansion of the United States to its present boundaries, the world wars, and the civil rights movement” under careful review. Another would permit parents to sue school districts that “encourage classroom discussions” on “sexual orientation or gender identity” in “primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.” Critics say this language is so broad as to effectively outlaw any discussion of L.G.B.T. people in elementary school classrooms, or at the very least, strongly discourage teachers from raising those issues, regardless of context.
Pushed by militantly conservative activists — and heeding the demands of an increasingly censorious group of conservative voters — Republican lawmakers are, in states across the country, introducing bills that suppress debate and stifle discussion in favor of the rote memorization of approved facts.
Last month, for example, the Indiana House of Representatives approved a bill — not yet signed into law — that would limit what teachers can say regarding race, history and politics in the state’s classrooms. Under the law, schools could be held liable for mentioning any one of several “divisive concepts,” including the idea that “any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish responsibility, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin or political affiliation.”
The bill would allow parents to allege a violation, file a complaint, sue and even collect damages (up to $1,000). It would also, in the name of transparency, create curriculum review committees for parents and require schools and teachers to post lists of material on websites for parents to inspect.
In South Carolina, lawmakers have introduced a bill — known as the Freedom from Ideological Coercion and Indoctrination Act — that would prohibit any state-funded institution from stating that “a group or an individual, by virtue of his or her race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, heritage, culture, religion, or political belief is inherently racist, sexist, bigoted, ignorant, biased, fragile, oppressive, or contributive to any oppression, whether consciously or unconsciously.” If signed into law, this bill could make it illegal, for instance, for teachers and college professors in the state to criticize members of a white supremacist group since that affiliation might count as a “political belief.”
Schools that “repeatedly distort or misrepresent verifiable historical facts” or “omit relevant and important context” or “advertise or promote ideologies or sociopolitical causes or organizations” could face a loss of state funding, state accreditation or tax-exempt status. As for what these violations would actually look like? The bill does not say.
The most disturbing efforts to monitor schools and teachers for wrong-think involve actual surveillance. Bills introduced in Iowa and Mississippi would install classroom cameras that would stream lessons over the internet for anyone to observe. The Iowa bill, which died in committee this week, would have forced schools to place cameras in all K-12 classrooms, except for physical education and special-needs classes. Teachers and other staff members who obstructed cameras or failed to keep them in working order would face fines of up to 5 percent of their weekly pay for each infraction.
According to PEN America, more than half of the “educational gag orders” moving through state legislatures include a mandatory punishment for those found in violation.
Opponents of these bills say that the laws don’t encourage openness or promote respect in the classroom as much as they suppress speech, intimidate teachers and open the door to harassment or worse.
Already, in states that have actually enacted these bills, many teachers are opting for silence about certain topics, for fear of punishment. My colleagues in the newsroom have found multiple cases of teachers choosing to omit certain facts rather than run the risk of offending these laws, which are often vague and poorly written. As one history teacher in Oklahoma put it, “I am not going to let any of these laws deter me from the things that I think work best for students, but I also enjoy working with students and having a roof over my head.”
Free speech, free discourse and free debate are among the great traditions of this country. They are, at this moment, under threat from a well-organized, well-funded movement of ideologues who have used both the force of the mob and their own institutional power (including that of the state itself) to impose their edicts on the public at large.
Conservative censors and their allies see, in the present moment, an opportunity to reshape society to their liking and squelch the views of those who disagree. It is up to those of us who believe in the First Amendment and free speech to take a stand for American liberty, while we still can.
Cops want him to plead guilty to see his kids, but he’s fighting back instead
Just how far will the criminal justice system go to quash dissent? The case of popular police auditor Otto the Watchdog is a cautionary tale of how far prosecutors and cops will go to pursue charges against people who hold them accountable.
In this episode, PAR speaks with Otto the Watchdog about his three-year ordeal fighting charges for holding a sign police said was offensive, and why he made the decision not to plead guilty after prosecutors offered him a deal to avoid jail.
Did being in the military change your perspective of America?
Being in the Army changed my perspective of America in several ways. Perhaps the most significant of these was the realization of the power of the press in the United States.
It is vital for operational security that the public not be made aware of everything going on in a war, but it goes way beyond that.
In coordination with the armed forces and the federal government, the press tightly controls what information is released to the populace.
One example of this is the ban on the media taking images of flag-draped coffins being returned to the US from Iraq and Afghanistan. These aren’t coffins per se, but instead, they are known as “transfer cases” used to transport the body back to their loved ones.
Other examples were how the war was spun from the perspective of indigenous people of a nation and misleading the country as to how long we were planning on keeping troops in the country.
It was like parents keeping delicate information from a small child. The attitude was, “They don’t need to know.” I don’t see it as a cover-up, but rather a careful picking and choosing information. Those choices occurred way above my pay grade.
** “You have arrived at your destination.”
I remember calling home and having my family say things like, “Sounds like you guys should be home in a few weeks.” All I could say to them at the time was something like, “That’s not going to happen.”
At the time, we had plans for extended deployments and troop rotations lasting years into the future.
I didn’t think I was naive, but one day the obviousness of it all smacked me upside the head, and I realized, “They (the American people) only know what they (the government and press) want them to know.”