Advocates fire back after judge rules filming police isnt a first ammendment right

This ruling of this case comes from a lawsuit from two Philadelphia residents, Richard Fields and Amanda Geraci, who say that their constitutional rights were violated when police took their cameras away as they recorded Police officers in action. Because the two of them did not have a reason to record the officers and were just recording because it looked interesting is different then to record the police to be critical of the government. In a statement by Richard and Amanda s lawyer stated to The Huffington Post on Tuesday that Kearney's decision is contrary to Philadelphia's own policy of allowing citizens to record officers in public no matter what the situation. The reason we have these types of lawsuits in the first place is because police violate that policy,. The most important point of the First Amendment is to ensure that we can criticize our government."

Many Lawyers and Scholars think that the case will be overturned when it hits the appellate courts. There has already been a case where the ruling was in favor of recording police and protecting first amendment rights. Previously the ruling on a similar case held that the 'Constitution protects the right of individuals to videotape police officers performing their duties Protecting that right of information gathering not only aids in the uncovering of abuses, but also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally. Those First Amendment principles apply equally to the filming of a traffic stop and the filming of an arrest in a public park was." The ruling on this case is very important because it has such a impact on how people can act with police officers.