不过,若在拍摄的同时进行录音便会引起一系列新的法律问题。大部分的州实行关于音频记录的单方同意法,这意味着只要单方同意,录音就是合法的。而在大部分须经所有当事人同意才能录音的12个州中,只有被录音的内容具有合理的隐私预期,录音才是违法的。但要证明在公共场所履行职责的警察有这种权利相当困难。马里兰州是须征得所有当事人同意才能录音的州,该州司法部长在2010年时写道:民众与警察的接触几乎都不会被视为隐私。
And challenges are mounting in two of the statesIllinois and Massachusettswithoutexpectation-of-privacy clauses. In Massachusetts last August, a federal appeals court uphelda lower courts ruling that a citizens right to film police in public is protected by the first andfourth amendments.
而且,在伊利诺州和马萨诸塞州这两个没有隐私预期条款的州中,人们的质疑越来越多。去年八月在马萨诸塞州,一地方法院作了以下判决:公民在公共场所拍摄警察的权利是受到宪法第一及第四修正案保护的。一个联邦上诉法庭对此判决表示支持。
During oral arguments, one of the judges hearing the challenges to the Illinois EavesdroppingAct worried that allowing recording might hinder the ability of the police to do their jobs. Hegave the example of a policeman talking to a confidential informant. Police have alsoexpressed concern about recording, and hence exposing, undercover officers. But of coursepolice can still speak in private. Given the actions of some police officers when confronted with acamera, filming cops may not be prudent. But neither should it be illegal.
【2015考研英语阅读技术与公民自由】相关文章:
最新
2016-10-18
2016-10-11
2016-10-11
2016-10-08
2016-09-30
2016-09-30