"We don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ,” the House speaker said. His office later noted that DOJ already has the raw footage.
"We don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ,” the House speaker said. His office later noted that DOJ already has the raw footage.
I’m against doxxing in all of its forms. Privacy’s a right and we should protect it, even when it makes it harder to punish the bad guys. So I’m not really mad about the outcome here. Not that I’d feel particularly bent out of shape about it if their images WERE revealed because it was pretty fucking easy to not be in that crowd inadvertently.
But we all know that’s not why he’s doing this. Mike Johnson doesn’t believe in privacy or any other rights. He’s a true conservative harnessing the apparatus of state to give comfort to his tribe and punish outsiders. He’s using power to enforce his preferences and values on others. He’s giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States because he approves of the attempt to undermine democracy and execute a fascists takeover of the nation. Because he’s a traitor.
I don’t know that I’d agree with characterizing this as doxxing; I’d say it’s more in line with reporting. Especially considering many of the terrorists involved in this attack are still at large.
What outcome? The article notes that the DOJ already has the footage unblurred. So Johnson is just doing performative wankery here.
That was my initial thought, but then I read the article.
Blurring the footage isn’t the empty gesture I thought it was. All he’s doing is exposing the layout of the building while protecting insurrectionists. Bear in mind that the building was deliberately designed in a confusing way for security purposes.
Fuck this guy.
This should be illegal, if it’s not already. Like aiding and albeiting criminals.
May have a word spelled wrong.
The main objective of releasing unblurred images publicly would be to assist with identification and investigation, right? To recruit the larger American audience to help the cops identify people.
Progressives are suddenly VERY enthusiastic to be deputized as cops when it comes to Jan 6.
You can have privacy in your private residence or at a private business. If you are in a public space you have never, ever had any expectation of privacy. This is as bad an argument as saying social media removing or censoring posts is against the right to freedom of speech.
That’s a cop brain argument. Just because you’re out “in public” does not give anyone permission to freely do with your personal information, such as images of you, however they so please. Utter horseshit. Your right to privacy in your affairs travels with you, and having a major political official post images of you which people may use to figuratively and literally attack you for political reasons without due process is about as major a violation as I can imagine, ignoring any other factors or details around that release.
You can make an argument that, this being an honest-to-god protest, maybe these people were conducting them in a fully-public way. I’d maybe buy that. But the burden needs to be pretty damn high on that, and so it’s not a stupid little fucker like Mike Johnson’s authority to make that decision.
Just because (US) law says that it is OK doesn’t mean it is OK. Rights have supremacy over law and when the law stands in the way of rights, the law must change, not the rights. I’ll remind you that in other places (e.g., Germany), this “out in public” distinction essentially does not exist.
Removing your rights requires due process, period. The (theoretically) proper agencies to follow that due process have the unredacted footage and so they can go through the procedures to release it justly if they feel it is necessary. Mike Johnson does not get to act as the judge, jury, and executioner in a case like this, no matter how much I expect anyone harmed by that act would be human shit.
We’ll have no privacy rights at all in the near future if people keep uncritically accepting the arguments the cops make for when and where privacy exists.
deleted by creator
Many rioters were identified by people who knew them based on previous footage. Anyone in the videos is already breaking the law, right? There were dozens of people livestreaming this already… I think you make a good point in general, but in this case I’m not sure I agree. There are places and times with an expectation of privacy, but storming your nation’s capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of a democratic election is probably not one
We don’t leave it up to a religious fascist like Mike Johnson to chose who does or doesn’t have rights. If a proper investigative body wants help identifying individuals, they can go through the proper procedures to release those images to ask the public for help identifying them. Which includes facing proper costs and consequences if any individuals are inappropriately identified by those efforts.
You’re doing what the conservative SCOTUS justices always do when deleting our civil rights – presuming the crime happened exactly as you believe it did then listing how bad it is in order to justify your conclusion that everyone involved should be drawn and quartered. It’s an inversion of due process. Due process happens first, removal of rights second. If you have to remove rights first in order to have due process, there was no due process.
If you think it’s a good point in general but don’t agree in this case, I think you need to think about it a lot longer. Protecting rights is hard and sometimes requires letting some bad guys enjoy undue freedom. Privacy rights are under all-out assault right now and won’t exist soon enough unless we follow rigorous, real principles around them.
I respect your position on this. I’m not clamoring for them to release the footage, censored or not. What is the difference between a public space and a private one, though? If I go to a concert and they record footage and later release it with my face in it, has my privacy been violated? Did I have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Is it different because the government recorded it in this case? Are your rights being removed by the government releasing footage of a “protest” or otherwise? I’m not sure I buy that any rights are being infringed here. I also don’t think I share much in common with SCOTUS. Let’s say the FBI released the uncensored footage asking for the public’s help in identifying potential criminals – is that different because it’s done attempting to solve a crime?
Sorry for the litany of question marks, just curious!
Yes, they need to get you to sign a release. Disseminating your images, ESPECIALLY for commercial purposes, without your express consent violates your rights.
It would be different if they followed due process – that is, they followed relevant protocols (such as getting a warrant). Whether the current state of law adequately requires law enforcement agencies to go through this process is a separate but also very important discussion.