Appeals Court: Arresting Guy For Filming Cops Was A Clear Violation Of Both 1st & 4th Amendments

from the huge-victory-for-free-speech dept

We’ve had a lot of stories this year about police arresting people for filming them. It’s become quite a trend. Even worse, a couple weeks ago, we wrote about a police officer in Massachusetts, Michael Sedergren, who is trying to get criminal wiretapping charges brought against a woman who filmed some police officers beating a guy. This officer claims that the woman violated Massachusetts anti-wiretapping law, a common claim from police in such situations.

Segederin may have been better off if he’d waited a couple weeks for an appeals court ruling that came out Friday, because that ruling found that arresting someone for filming the police is a clear violation of both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. How the case got to this point is a bit complex, but basically, a guy named Simon Glik saw some police arresting someone in Boston, and thought they were using excessive force. He took out his camera phone and began recording. The police saw that and told him to stop taking pictures. He told them he was recording them, and that he’d seen them punch the guy they were arresting. One officer asked him if the phone recorded audio as well and Glik told him it did. At that point, they arrested him, saying that recording audio was a violation of Massachusetts wiretap laws.

Even more ridiculous, they then had him charged not just with that, but also with disturbing the peace and “aiding in the escape of a prisoner.” After realizing that last one didn’t even pass the guffaw test, Massachusetts officials dropped that charge. A Boston court then dumped the other charges and Glik was free. However, he wanted to take things further, as he thought his treatment was against the law. He first filed a complaint with Boston Police Internal Affairs who promptly set about totally ignoring it. After they refused to investigate, Glik sued the officers who arrested him and the City of Boston in federal court for violating both his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The police officers filed for qualified immunity, which is designed to protect them from frivolous charges from people they arrest.

The district court rejected the officers’ rights to qualified immunity, saying that their actions violated the First & Fourth Amendments. Before the rest of the case could go on, the officers appealed, and that brings us to Friday’s ruling, which, once again, unequivocally states that recording police in public is protected under the First Amendment, and that the use of Massachusetts wiretapping laws to arrest Glik was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights as well. The ruling (pdf) is a fantastic and quick read and makes the point pretty clearly. Best of all, it not only says that it was a clear violation, but that the officers were basically full of it in suggesting that this was even in question. The court more or less slams the officers for pretending they had a valid excuse to harass a guy who filmed them arresting someone.

The 4th Amendment bit may not be as widely applicable, since it mainly focuses on the Massachusetts wiretapping law. Here, the court notes that the law only covers audio recording in secret. But there is no indication that Glik did any of his filming in secret. It found the officers’ arguments that he could have been doing lots of things on his mobile phone completely uncompelling, stating that the “argument suffers from factual as well as legal flaws.”

The full ruling is embedded below, but a few choice quotes:


Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966). Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.'” First Nat’l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n.11 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966)). This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties….

[….]

In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. See City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) (“[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.”). Indeed, “[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” Id. at 462-63. The same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in the face of “provocative and challenging” speech, id. at 461 (quoting Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949)), must be expected when they are merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing, their work in public spaces.

[….]

The presence of probable cause was not even arguable here. The allegations of the complaint establish that Glik was openly recording the police officers and that they were aware of his surveillance. For the reasons we have discussed, we see no basis in the law for a reasonable officer to conclude that such a conspicuous act of recording was “secret” merely because the officer did not have actual knowledge of whether audio was being recorded.

While this case isn’t over yet, it’s still a huge victory for those arrested by police for filming them in action. It suggests such people can bring charges against the police for civil rights violations in taking away their First Amendment rights. A tremendous ruling all around.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Appeals Court: Arresting Guy For Filming Cops Was A Clear Violation Of Both 1st & 4th Amendments”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
114 Comments
Precisely!says:

Re: Re: Re: Re: That's a key difference

Yes, one hurts the infringing policeman directly, and one hurts the taxpayers.

–And we should absolutely strive for the TAXPAYERS to be held responsible, because that is the source of the problem. The TAXPAYERS fund this system.

The TAXPAYERS support it.

The TAXPAYERS turn a blind eye to these abuses.

This wasn’t just “one cop”. This was the whole department. AND the prosecutor, DA, Judges in the past that made them so arrogant, We The People who don’t stand up in that time and place to defend our lives as required.

It is the SYSTEM’s fault, not one officer — and it is the TAXPAYERS who create that system.

Give him $50 million!! Then MAYBE the TAXPAYERS will give a flying you-know-what.

Until then, they go on doing it, and everyone knows it.

Don’t let the system try to feed you a sacrificial goat.

BILL THE TAX PAYERS.

Ratonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Civil Damages will move Law Enforcement Officers(?)

While I wish it would, this has proven NOT to be the case. What happens is they still don’t care because THEY DON”T PAY A DIME. You know who pays? You got it–YOU, the TAXPAYER! That is what is ridiculous about claims against police departments (and other government agencies). We need to have personal consequences for those involved.

Anonymous Herosays:

Re: Re:

Miranda Rights, Terry Stops Law, and a number of other common police procedures come directly from court decisions. Individual officers may not give a shit, but their departments facing millions in litigation costs surely will. You should expect to see a HUGE decrease of this type of activity in the near future.

Onnalasays:

Techdirt tends to go for some harsh stories about police and such but I would like to note that I still believe that the majority of cops are trying to do their jobs. Most of the time that I have heard of cops going for people with camera’s its because they really were doing something excessive.

Filming arrests with cell phones, has gotten popular here where I live. Lots of people bring the camera’s out when they see the police now. So far from what I have seen they just ask people to step back and stay out of the way.

Trailssays:

Re: Re:

“Techdirt tends to go for some harsh stories about police and such”

This is a pretty broad generalization, and imo, not especially accurate. Mike was quick to point out a cop who handled the situation well, and other cops who support your rights.

Mike comes down hard on law enforcement officials who trample rights, but, well, that’s sorta his duty, as a citizen, you know?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Citizen Duty

As others above have said, it’ll be a while before this ruling makes a bit of a difference on the street. If you whip out your phone and start recording, you will still be at risk of some officer attempting to confiscate your phone or have you arrested. If the situation allows, it seems to me quite valid to let the officer know that “I fully intend intend to comply with any summons to court to provide this video as evidence. In the meanwhile, the chain of evidence of this video will remain as clear as possible: I will keep my camera and the footage safe until a court requires it.” I suppose this will inspire some officers to add a charge of resisting arrest to your docket, but that’s the cost of eternal vigilance, I suppose.

Marcus Carabsays:

Re: Re:

The police are supposed to be an organization with rigidly enforced standards of behaviour. They are supposed to be an organization that people trust implicitly.

I say this in all seriousness: the entire organization of “the police” should be held accountable for the actions of any one police officer.

When one police officer violates the rights of a public citizen, every single officer is shamed. Every other cop in the country should be standing up and saying that what this officer did was wrong – but we know that’s not how the police work. In fact it’s quite the opposite: they go to great lengths to protect each other. They also expect (and generally receive) a wide berth for questionable behaviour due to the nature of their job.

That’s fine. But if they want to protect each other, and if they want to get special privileges because of the badge, then they need to accept that any action that tarnishes that badge reflects poorly on ALL of them.

sehlatsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

From Mark Clifton’s novel “Eight Keys to Eden”, published in 1960.

The case was crumbling, but all was not lost. He still had witnesses. He thought for a minute and began to wonder about those witnesses. Any judge, anybody around the courts, anybody connected with the press, and maybe even some of the public knew that any police officer will swear to any lie to back up another police officer because he might need the favor returned tomorrow.

The situation isn’t new.

Anonymous Cowardsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

They should all be held accountable in that they all are “shamed”? First off, how will that help anything? Even so, there are plenty of officers that feel shame for others that have done the badge an injustice. This doesn’t fix the situation. There are good, just as there are bad people out there, but punishing a group based on one person’s actions is not the way we should function.

Lets equate this scenario to your family. If your brother committed a crime and was incarcerated for it, you would protect him and stand up for him, wouldn’t you? So, with your logic, both of you should serve the penalty, because you stood up for him. Right? He’s your brother… you did stand up for him, didn’t you? You’re a family. One is bad, they must all be bad, right? Maybe your whole family should be locked up?

Seriously… You should think about judging an entire occupation before you hit the submit button.

Yepsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Neat huh?

So, with your logic, both of you should serve the penalty, because you stood up for him. Right? He’s your brother… you did stand up for him, didn’t you? You’re a family. One is bad, they must all be bad, right? Maybe your whole family should be locked up?

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Ever heard the phrase “The Hand of One is the Hand of All” ?

The cops sure have.

Almostsays:

Re: Re: Re: any action that tarnishes that badge

But if they want to protect each other, … then they need to accept that any action that tarnishes that badge reflects poorly on ALL of them.

Not quite; those actions you describe do not just “reflect poorly” upon them.

They BECOME the criminals, not mere reflections. It’s criminal conspiracy. It’s a crime. It’s a conspiracy.

Allowing them to investigacte themselves makes us into a laughing stock of a “civilization”

Stuartsays:

Re: Re:

The majority of cops are just trying to do their jobs as long as it is convenient.
Near where I live one cop beat a homeless man to death while the “good cops” stood by and watched it happen.
As long as the police “protect their own”. I will treat them as they act. Like gang members endorsed by the government.

Fuck them.
Fuck the bad ones.
And fuck every officer who shirks their duty by protecting them.

geetchsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

as i have read most of the posts on this article, there is one common theme. they dont like cops. i find that funny as every one dislikes them until they need one because some other malcontent has either ran a red light, stolen something, the list can go on. the way i see it with most is fuckem’ till i need them. thats a piss poor attitude. just as there are a few bad cops, you can find the lazy and worthless employees in any job.

DogBreathsays:

Re: Re:

Most of the time that I have heard of cops going for people with camera’s its because they really were doing something excessive.

This isn’t and these aren’t any of those times:

Police vs Reporter, US – ABC TV Crew Pulled Over, Gunpoint
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aS4VO-P8FQ

Police Attack a Fox News Reporter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu07FzPPXBs

Insane Cop Arrests ABC News Reporter For Filming Traffic Accident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbQUltNOqo8

Cop Puts Cameraman In Chokehold for Filming Peaceful Protest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSsGrIf8F0M

Tons more where that came from on Youtube.

Mehsays:

Re: Re:

You’d like to think so, but reality proves you wrong. I would venture to say that while most police officers are goons who could give a damn about people’s safety, rights or the Constitution, there are some cops out there who are outstanding public servants.

Filming arrests is popular where I live, too, and it’s a wonderful byproduct of technology that there will always be someone out there watching these people and documenting their actions.

To any officer who thinks the average citizen doesn’t have the right to film him, I’d just like to say (in a NYPD officer’s trademark New York accent): “If you ain’t doin’ anything wrong, you got nothin’ to worry about.”

Anonymoussays:

I think that this ruling may lead to even more people whipping out their cell phones every time a cop shows up, which will just interfere with the job that the police have to do.

There will undoubtedly be cases where people will be arrested while filming, and charged with obstructing justice because they got in the officers face with the camera and made it difficult if not impossible for the officers to perform their duties.

It’s disappointing to see such a wide open ruling, as it can lead to some serious abuses.

Marcus Carabsays:

Re: Re:

There will undoubtedly be cases where people will be arrested while filming, and charged with obstructing justice because they got in the officers face with the camera and made it difficult if not impossible for the officers to perform their duties.

It’s disappointing to see such a wide open ruling, as it can lead to some serious abuses.

In saying that, you have demonstrated why it makes no sense. As you point out, there are already laws about obstruction of justice, and they come into play when somebody’s actions actually obstruct justice – like getting up in an officer’s face, whether they are holding a camera or a banana.

That’s the point. A camera, in and of itself, means nothing, and does not magically make a person’s actions illegal if those actions do not interfere with the officer. If they DO interfere, there are existing laws to take care of it. This very good ruling clarifies that.

David Liusays:

Re: Re:

Wrong. A police officer is allowed to move the public away reasonably in order to do his job. If the public is literally up in his face, and continues to do so, the police would be allowed to charge that person with obstruction of justice.

What he cannot do is arrest an innocent bystander who is merely filming an incident at a safe distance.

There’s no reason why filming should interfere with the job that the police have to do.

Marksays:

Re: Re:

As opposed to the abuses that are performed by LEO’s (like in the original case that brought this suit).

“There will undoubtedly be cases where people will be arrested while filming, and charged with obstructing justice because they got in the officers face with the camera and made it difficult if not impossible for the officers to perform their duties.”

and those people should be charged. But the most typical type of encounter with these situations is a citizen filming the arrest from a distance and then the police going out of their way to get into the citizens face and not performing their duties.

this ruling is actually good for the police. As it will make them turn their focus to performing arrests and duties within the bounds of the law. Rather than putting their attention to someone and distracting them from what could be a dangerous situation. If the officers were doing nothing wrong, then they shouldn’t have any reason to feel threatened by a doofus with a camera.

Plus, if something goes wrong, their is video evidence. This can both protect and hurt the officers. If they are the provocateurs then it can lead to disciplinary hearings and possible removing of the ‘bad’ officers from the force. If it was the person the officers were dealing with, then it gives them more credibility with the law and with public as it can’t just be seen as police protecting another.

Again, this is good for the police, the citizenry, and for society as a whole. How you can be against this is unbelievable.

What about....says:

Re: Re: Re: disciplinary hearings

If they are the provocateurs then it can lead to disciplinary hearings and possible removing of the ‘bad’ officers from the force.

That’s the WORST thing that can happen. How about kidnapping charges? Assault and battery? Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon? Attempted murder?

Conspiracy to do all the above?

Breaking an entering if you’re in your car.

Petty theft when they take your phone?

“Disciplinary hearings” are a joke. I want 3-5 years of hard time in general population!

If there aren’t consequences then nothing will change.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

I think that this ruling may lead to even more people whipping out their cell phones every time a cop shows up

I certainly hope so!

which will just interfere with the job that the police have to do.

Besides two courts disagreeing with you, could you explain your logic? How does passively filming someone interfere with what they’re doing?

Filming is just observation – are you suggesting that police officers are subatomic particles?

Let’s see – we have quarks, muons, bosons, leptons, gluons, and now “copons”?

DogBreathsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Filming is just observation – are you suggesting that police officers are subatomic particles?

Simple fix. Download the Heisenberg Compensator app to your smartphone and make sure it’s enabled before filming. That way your video recording won’t affect the spin or position of the officers being filmed, while simultaneously overcoming the Uncertainty principle of how often the officers will legally be allowed to arrest you for interference in performance of their duties, and attempt to get away with trumped up charges in in violation of your 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

DogBreathsays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

The problem with that is unless you have a high quality video where mouths can be seen and lips can be read, then the police can say you said you verbally threatened them (“he said he had a gun and was going to shoot us”) and that’s why they shot/tasered/punched/kicked the crap out of you or others on the video someone filmed. The audio leaves no doubt as to what was going on, even catching things that aren’t visible on camera.

Hopefully the “wiretap” laws will catch up with the times and be ruled on more precisely as this case was here.

Stevesays:

Re: Re: It's disappointing to see such a wide open ruling, as it can lead to some serious abuses.

Oh no people will abuse their rights! We need more rulings that severely limit those rights. We’re already 27 years behind schedule.

How do you “get in an officer’s face” with the camera? Wouldn’t you have to get between the officer and the person they’re arresting in order to do that?

How does filming an officer doing their job make it impossible for that officer to do their job?

Canucksays:

Re: Re:

Exactly how does a citizen who is filming law enfporment activities get in the way of police doing their job.
A ) Cops are civil servants…they are OUR employees
B) I am legally entitled to ensure that those employees are doing their job apprpriately, professionaly.
C) If a cop chooses to interfere with my right to film his/her actions, then it is not I who is the one at fault for slowing down the police work, it is the cop who decided to bother me and let their duties fall to the wayside, who is at fault.

Thank GOD common sense and the rule of law was applied correctly in this appeal…these cops are a disgrace to the badge, and it astounds me that anyone whould rally around them.

Reallysays:

Re: Re: "Just Interfere"?

I don’t think that people whipping out their cell phones every time a cop shows up “will just interfere with the job that police have to do”. How many times do these videos show up on the internet where police officers are found using excessive force? There’s a reason why people are filming, and saying that it will only interfere with the job is a pretty open statement, and does not touch on any positive results of citizens openly filming police activities

Jamynsays:

Re: Re: Interference


I think that this ruling may lead to even more people whipping out their cell phones every time a cop shows up, which will just interfere with the job that the police have to do.

No. You don’t get it. Filming an officer DOES NOT INTERFERE with what they’re doing. They’re a public official. IF you’re nonchalantly filming what they’re doing on the job, it shouldn’t matter, not even a little bit.

The only time it matters is if the person recording the activity is actively interfering with the arrest. Otherwise, simply documenting what’s going on is NOT ILLEGAL and should not be. Ever.

We, including the police, should respect the ideals this country was founded on. We’re supposed to be an example country, showing how things are done “right”. We should be the most free country… but our rights are being eroded.

Stand up for your rights.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

An officer should conduct themselves as if he/she were on camera any way. If he/she is doing their job correctly. Then the officer shouldn’t have any problems. Actually videotaping an arrest can be beneficial to the officer/prosecution. It could be used as evidence against the suspect being arrested if they were for example resisting arrest, being disorderly etc….

I do however agree that if a person interferes with an officer conducting an investigation or an arrest that he/she should be charged with obstruction.

DocWebstersays:

I fully expect that in the near future there will be some attempt to write a law to circumvent this ruling nationally. Law enforcement would not be headed down this road without the implied consent of those in power. It will be done quietly and be buried in the minute recesses of some appropriations bill. We should all wake up to the fact that we are no longer considered anything more than cows to be milked and the police are really only there to make sure that the discontented cows get sent to the slaughterhouse.

someguysays:

THey don't care

There is no penalty for a police officer violating these Constitutional rights by making these false arrests, so they’ll continue to do it. They don’t care if later on it gets thrown out. The purpose of these free false arrests is to harass the filmer and prevent others from wanting to go through the harassment. The more publicity the better; that way people KNOW they are going to be arrested and have to go through a lot of expense.

And it works, so the police will continue to do this. They’re union. You can’t fuck with union thugs.

backseat_driversays:

Control of the video

Since police have been recording us for years via dash cams and mics on their uniforms I don’t think the real fear is being recorded. I think the real fear is not being in control of those videos. Those who control the editing & deleting of the videos are the ones with the real power and they realize that.

DogBreathsays:

Re: Re: Control of the video

Those who control the editing & deleting of the videos are the ones with the real power and they realize that.

The movie Blue Thunder comes to mind, in that the police helicopter had a surveillance video tape erase feature built into it that was controlled remotely.

Turns out the star of the movie, Roy Scheider, had some things to say about the loss of privacy and rights (we are experiencing today) all the way back in 1983.

Thomassays:

A quote from the post

“He first filed a complaint with Boston Police Internal Affairs who promptly set about totally ignoring it” Just goes to show that the “internal affairs” is solely devoted to whitewashing the police of any wrongdoing. And cops and city politicians wonder why people don’t trust the police. It’s simple; the police should not be trusted. I would much much rather encounter a mugger in Boston than a Boston cop; a mugger would take your wallet/phone and be gone, but a cop you annoy can arrest you without real cause, throw you down to the ground, beat you up, and then throw you into jail, where you will be charged and it will take thousands of dollars to clear your name, assuming you can even afford to pay an attorney. Cops say that only people who have done something wrong will run from them, but if you are a member of a racial minority an encounter is likely to get you arrested even if you’ve done nothing wrong.

Aleinasays:

Impossible

It is impossible for a police officer to memorize every law they enforce, there are simply too many laws, with too much legal language that they aren’t possibly qualified to interpret.”
Yet they can and will arrest any citizen who violates any of those laws for the same ignorance. Why should you excuse cops who violate them because of ignorance? That’s extremely flawed and dangerous thinking.
http://goo.gl/zTDoR

FritzMuffknucklesays:

This ruling will apply to politicians who confiscate recordings as well.

I’m very happy to see a court rule on the common sense of citizens recording cops and removing the one sided use of recorded evidence. But there is another pleasant consequence of this ruling.

Since this ruling applies to recording public officials in public places, it also outlaws the practice of politicians prohibiting citizens from recording them at public events. This practice is used to stop normal citizens from using the politician’s own words in any future criticism.

The most recent case being Ohio Congressman Steve Chabot at a town hall meeting in a public school last week. He had police confiscate cell phones from citizens who tried to record the event while letting the media continue to record it. This ruling should put a stop to this as well as help keep the police accountable. It’s a win all the way around.

FritzMuffknuckle

Rawrsays:

Cops are people. They have as much right as anyone else to ask another person to stop filming. What they can’t do is use the power granted to them as law enforcement to do so. But they get first amendment rights, too. How quick we are to claim our rights, and give them none of theirs.

It’s the provoking, disrespectful, smug asswipe with a camera that is the problem here, not the small percentage of corrupt cops. The former are just out to make a decent cop look bad by being a douchebag and provoking natural human irritation for some good YouTube fodder.

DogBreathsays:

Re: Re:

Cops are people. They have as much right as anyone else to ask another person to stop filming.

But they get first amendment rights, too. How quick we are to claim our rights, and give them none of theirs.

Just as you said, cops have First Amendment rights too, but then no one is going around arresting them for recording citizens in public without their consent.

What they can’t do is use the power granted to them as law enforcement to do so.

And when they do, they should get called to the proverbial “woodshed” to face the music for violating the citizens rights under color of law.

It’s the provoking, disrespectful, smug asswipe with a camera that is the problem here, not the small percentage of corrupt cops. The former are just out to make a decent cop look bad by being a douchebag and provoking natural human irritation for some good YouTube fodder.

As far as I know, provoking, disrespectful, being a smug asswipe or making the a cop look like a douchebag (by the cops own actions and/or ignorance of the law) and posting the video to Youtube, are not arrestable offenses under the law in the U.S. of A. (With the exception of the twisting of so-called “wiretapping” laws in some backwards states excluded).

thepilgrimsays:

Filming in Public

RE: Rawr, Aug 29th, 2011 @ 3:49pm

“Cops are people. They have as much right as anyone else to ask another person to stop filming.”

And as a photographer, I am under no obligation to comply with your request. The courts have consistently ruled that a person in a public place has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The only time I need to get a release from you is when I am going to use the picture in a commercial venture i.e. a commercial or advertisement that implies your endorsement of the product.

Freedom really is freedom.

We can do more than just film abuse of power by the police

Many (non-mainstream) sites continue to offer significant news covering the gross abuse of power by our governments, but few come up with any workable suggestions as to how to realistically fix things.

I hope you’ll be willing to check out my site, and to help spread the information (or contribute to it, as my email is on the site)
http://betterinfos.com -> gives a short run down on major truth people should know about (eg: link to 15 min documentary that will convince everyone but trolls that 9/11 was an inside job)
http://betterinfos.com/politics.html -> more detail
http://betterinfos.com/fakes.html -> info on the myriad fakes that typically fool everyone who ‘awakens’, at first
http://betterinfos.com/WhatToDo.html -> a long list of things you can and should be doing, things that you will see can reasonably SUCCEED!

Hopefully you can help me spread this information, and make it viral, as honestly it stands out from the rest: it’s not just disheartening truth about our corrupt government – it’s also how to defeat them.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow