Fed Court says the 1st Amendment Protects the "Right" to Photograph Police in Public [this "Write" Exists in Courtrooms, but Who Will Protect its Use on the Street?]

camera 2.jpg

YOUR WRITES ARE JUST WORDS ON PAPER. Laws protect no one. Their existence depends upon your belief in them. Lawless cops so frequently abuse their power that no one—no Black or Latino motorist, no juvenile, no adult, no professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that constitutional rights afford any real protection from the state. Believe in them at your own risk.

From [HERE] A panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [judicial website] on Tuesday vacated [opinion, PDF] a lower court’s decision dismissing a suit against the Department of Homeland Security [official website] for confiscating photos of law enforcement officials at the border.

The photos were taken by activist Christian Ramirez in 2010 on a pedestrian bridge near the US-Mexican border. Ramirez observed a Customs and Border Protection official patting down only women who were crossing the border and became concerned. He took “approximately ten photos” on his cellphone. Several officers surrounded Ramirez, took his phone, and deleted the photographs.

The opinion stated, “the First Amendment protected the right to photograph and record matters of public interest, and whether a place was ‘public’ depended on the nature of the location.” The burden of proving that confiscating the photographs were the “least restrictive means” rests with the government.

The lower court had ruled that deleting the photos was “that least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest of protecting the United States’s territorial sovereignty” while applying strict scrutiny.

WHO WON THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT BETWEEN THE CAMERAMAN & DALLAS COPS ON THE STREET? Force wins in Yurungu's lawless system! 

The court stated;

“Public streets and sidewalks” are “the archetype of a traditional public forum.” Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 945 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 456 (2011)); accord United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983) (noting that “‘public places’ historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be ‘public forums’”); ACLU of Nev., 333 F.3d at 1101 (“[W]hen a property is used for open public access or as a public thoroughfare, we need not expressly consider the compatibility of expressive activity because these uses are inherently compatible with such activity.”).

According to Dr. Blynd:

rights - fantasmatic or fictitious objects having no reality in actuality by those imagining as an identity being in possession of them. Rights are cultural gratuities perceived through various fantasy frames, recognized, and sometimes even created, by man's system of law to provide a modicum or pretense of civility under a system whereby their very undermining and violation is vouchsafed. Rights are merely rites unless you know how to assert and defend them in order to enjoy them. 2) things people are free to do whether they are able to or not. 3) conditions of existence required by hue-man's nature for their potential survival (primarily against the cartoon that kills, i.e., the wholly unconscionable entity called the "State"). It is a mistaken notion that rights are enjoyed by one at the expense of the many—that is the realm of privilege. Enjoyment of rights in a neo-imperialistic world controlled by Yurugu through the Greater System (Symbolic Order), paradoxically, entails not only a recognition of their inevitability but, equally, their impossibility. How can we be endowed with rights, or even know what rights are when they are based on binary considerations? Rights, as ontological ephemera, cannot be universally observed, recognized, realized or, enforced—and paradoxically, act also as its own eternal source for its assertion and vessel for its fulfillment in our imaginary enjoyment of them. While the law reads rights referentially, what is universally needed in the praxis of rights discourse today is a particular re-inscription, demystification or reontologising of rights (revivified and convivial) by the pan-gendered subject-citizen-decoder—taken symptomatically rather than seriously. Most people rarely experience the cognizance of being property of corporate fictions because as long as you don't violate the rules of society your real status as feudal-property-slave is no: involved or revealed. If there is no 'I,' to what and to whom do rights as objects accrue? Those who are confused by suffering (and the subject of same) require a re-onotoligisation of rights through the trajectory of meaning independent of their existence. Rights and even 'lefts' (i.e., what remains after all of our imaginary rights are traced to their inception as figment) for that matter, like good and evil, are human inventions which humans treat as non-human realities. While fantasy frames invent rights, romanticism reinvents them. Enjoy your symptoms and play with your syndrome—the symptom is the solution. Read carefulh the holding in the supreme Court case of U.S. v. Babcock. Rights are myths—obedience to servitude or jail is the reality. (See: Abilities, Bill of Rights, Monoright, Servitude, Fantasy, Jurisdiction, Human Resources, Citizenship, Frankenstein, Autonomy. Rule of Law, Surrogate Power, Indigenous Power, Yurugu, Jouissance, Privilege, Disobedience, Duty & Willpower)