Spain Looks to Ban Photos, Videos of Police

Nothing to do with them beating up protesters, they promise


Tengo tu nariz!

Claiming that their truncheon-waving riot police are the ones actually in danger, Spain is drafting a law banning the photography or videotaping of police in the line of duty. Russia Today has some information:

Spain's government is drafting a law that bans the photographing and filming of members of the police. The Interior Ministry assures they are not cracking down on freedom of expression, but protecting the lives of law enforcement officers.

­The draft legislation follows waves of protests throughout the country against uncompromising austerity cuts to public healthcare and education.

The new Citizen Safety Law will prohibit "the capture, reproduction and editing of images, sounds or information of members of the security or armed forces in the line of duty," said the director general of the police, Ignacio Cosido. He added that this new bill seeks to "find a balance between the protection of citizens' rights and those of security forces."

The dissemination of images and videos over social networks like Facebook will also be punishable under the legislation.

Here's a lovely video showing Spain's police at work in 2011 (fast-forward to the 2:00 mark for the good stuff):

A report at Global Voices highlights some of the claims of police abuse at the more recent protests over Spain's pursuit of austerity:

Once again, the social networks were the most commonly used means of sharing impressions, slogans and material about the events. Indignation about the police brutality continues to be one of the most commented and criticized aspects. A multitude of videos show arbitrary arrests, the intimidation of journalists, and protestors being hit and chased, including inside Atocha train station. Besides home videos, devices allowing events to be streamed such as Toma la Tele played an important role.

It is important to note the reaction of spontaneous support displayed on the net which has transformed the manager of a local bar into a hero. He prevented the police from entering his establishment where a group of protestors who were being chased had found refuge. Another widely circulated video on the Internet shows evidence of police infiltrators dressed as citizens. The video goes on to show a scene in which the riot police hit an individual and he identifies himself as a policeman shouting: "I'm a colleague, damn it." This phrase later became a hashtag on Twitter. Amnesty International Spain announced that it will request an investigation by the Interior Ministry [es] to clarify what the infiltrators were doing there and whether their intention was to break up the protest. The police were also criticised for not wearing their identification badges. 

So if the police weren't wearing badges and recording them violated the law, it would quite neatly make it impossible to hold abusive police accountable. Not that there appears to be much effort anyway.

NEXT: Libertarian Gary Johnson Tries Again to Sue His Way Into Presidential Debates

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Euros are so much more enlightened and liberal than we are! They can do no wrong!

    1. Thanky kindly, Kristen. I have now gotten my Archer-Daniels-Midland approved level of delicious, nutritious, Borshh-flavoured snark for the day! -)))

    2. “Yeah San Francisco is more of a European city, like Paris or Milan…”

      *sniffs anus*

  2. Wonderful alt-text, Scott.

    Also, this is why speech needs unconditional protection.

    1. Also, this is why speech needs unconditional protection.

      Except blasphemy. We can’t blashpheme The Prophet Muhammed.

      1. Blashphemy – the impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things while massively inebriated.

        1. Or while talking like Sean Connery…

          …not that they’re necessarily unrelated.

    2. Indeed, brilliant work with the alt-text.

    3. Because of alt-text? I agree.

  3. Police are the same wherever you go.

  4. well, generlissimo franco may still be dead… but in spain, fascism lives on…

    1. Franco’s successor is still king.

    2. Hey Dunphy, check this out:…..nt_3324746

      1. i checked it out y0

        1. But didn’t feel any need to comment?

          1. i feel neither the need nor obligation nor do i post on every police uof issue, video, etc. here. some i find interesting or whatever i post on. some i don’t. i guess because i am the “house cop” people expect an automatic reponse to this kind of thing from me, but that’s not how i roll

            do you have an opinion on a specific aspect of the UOF? are you asking my opinion? if the latter, i’d like to hear your former.

            i wish there was audio, fwiw, but the video is pretty illuminating regardless.

      1. have u had any problem videotaping cops in seattle? i haven’t

        i get video’d all the time when i am working. i enjoy it. i’m handsome. the camera likes me 🙂

        i’ve also videotaped cops on traffic stops, etc. never had the slightest problem.

        does your experience differ?

  5. I see the prison sysstem beating the inmates, is what I see.

    The European people, like the American people are increasingly doing, asked to be slaves with guaranteed healthcare, retirement and six weeks paid time off. The Western nations no longer enjoy rights, they enjoy privileges. In return, you no longer belong to yourself, you belong to society. Now that the European system is collapsing, the spanish government must take away the privileges it granted the inmates.

    Nobody protests for freedom anymore, we protest for five minute showers instead of three minute showers. We protest for two pieces of cornbread at mealtime instead of one. We ask for permission to cohabitate and marry whomever we want. Those aren’t rights, they’re privileges.

    We sit around and think we won when the state grants us permission for another privilege. We’ll sometimes even demand that a privilege be taken away from another group (citing externalities) while the prison wardens laugh and laugh.

    1. You get cornbread?
      fucking house nigger

    2. I’m think a domed city in Antarctica about now would be a good idea.

      1. Like some kind of fortress?

        1. Yes. Maybe at the North Pole, instead. For solitude for libertarians.

    3. nice screed! and i mean that trully and wholly unsarcastically.

      i read it three times!


      1. Took you three times to figure out the words?

    4. I think one problem is the decline of the idea that there are natural rights inherent in individuals. The rise of the state after the liberalization of (parts of) Europe and the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries has slowly moved the concept to one of rights emanating from the state. It’s kind of like the old idea of real property, where ownership began with the sovereign and moved down the food chain from there.

      Not sure why this has happened. Could it be related to a decline in the West of religious beliefs? Personally, I think a natural rights concept can work without being tied to those rights coming from God (whatever your beliefs may be), but religion does have a way of focusing such beliefs. Heck if I know.

      1. It’s the perversion of the definition of rights. When people believed only in negative rights, it made sense to understand that a document like The Bill of Rights was a statement of what constraints were put on the government to pre-existing rights. Once positive “rights” gained traction due to progressivism, the confusion of the terms made it look like negative rights flowed from the same governmental authority that positive “rights” must flow from. Since positive “rights” are the government taking and giving, the giving role was applied to negative rights as well.

        1. I’m so sick of people saying shit like “The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms.”

          I want to say “No, fuckstain, the Second Amendment recognizes a natural right and prohibits the government from infringing upon it.”

          Some days I really hate people.

        2. We need a reset button. Do you think the Founders built one in DC somewhere?

          1. I dig what The Founders were trying to do, but their faith in humanity was stunningly naive. They believed that natural rights were obvious and did not have to be defined.

            To the willfully stupid nothing is obvious.

            1. If someone insists that something obvious be explained, it’s not worth explaining since they’ll never get it.

              1. Nothing is self-evident if someone doesn’t want it to be, so don’t base your foundational theory of government on that standard.

                The Founders thought their outlook was objective and transcendental, leaving the country unprepared for the inmates running the asylum.

            2. It’s a dangerous path that way, too, though. Defined rights are narrowed rights.

              The fundamental problem is that there are too many power-hungry, corrupt, lazy, and dishonest people in the world. In concentrated governments, that’s a problem because the leadership will eventually contain one or more of those qualities. In republics, it’s a problem because a large number of voters have those qualities.

              I think the Constitution might’ve worked longer if it had had more checks on government power. But, in the end, the people have to want limited government. If I could only change one thing, it might be to restore the anti-government feeling that dominated most of our history.

              1. think the Constitution might’ve worked longer if it had had more checks on government power.

                God Damn the commerce clause.

                1. I don’t hate the Commerce Clause all that much. There had to be an final arbiter for trade disputes among the states and the Federal government was a good choice in that scenario.

                  It’s not the Clause’s fault so many idiots would have to have it say “And no, this doesn’t mean the Federal government gets to control every individual in the county in every aspect of their lives.”

                  The entire Constitution would have to be 5,000 pages to stop the willful perversion of its ideas by state-tards. And that size of document can create its own loopholes.

                  Properly restraining a state is impossible, ultimately. The anarchists are right on this score.

                  1. I agree with the initial purpose of the Commerce Clause. But it, like most provisions of the Constitution, have been distorted by government, almost always in its favor.

                    In a very real sense, we’re the victims of a slow-moving coup d’etat.

                  2. I don’t hate the Commerce Clause all that much. There had to be an final arbiter for trade disputes among the states and the Federal government was a good choice in that scenario.

                    …For the purposes of maintaining free and open trade among the several states, the federal government shall maintain the authority to remove barriers prohibiting the flow of [men], goods and services erected by the several states. Let it be known that this power in no way is to be construed as an unlimited federal power to create any federal barrier or regulation restricting the same.

                    1. […] the purposes of maintaining free and open trade among the several states, the federal government shall […]

                      Hmm, needs more Ss written as Fs.

                    2. You mean ??

                      Yes. But I had to emphasize by capitalizing. Oh wait, you actually posted the special character.


              2. I think the Constitution might’ve worked longer if it had had more checks on government power.

                The problem is that there is no incentive to remove crappy legislation and regulation. The courts were supposed to have that role, but instead they’ve turned into a rubber stamp.

                I’d settle for an Amendment banning lawyers from public office.

            3. but their faith in humanity was stunningly naive

              Patrick Henry agrees.

              1. “The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing: the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England: a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland: an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely.

                Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great considerations, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?”


        3. I’m increasingly refusing to refer to rights as “negative” or “positive”. If it’s what we understand to be a negative right, I will refer to it as A Right. If it’s what we understand to be a positive right, I will refer to it as a “privilege”. And privileges enjoy no Caps Privileges.

          1. Great, yet another term proggies have bastardized. Clearly, you are blinking and dogwhistling, Paul, because according to progressive academia, only white people enjoy “privilege.”

            Unless you are applying to UT, that is, or arguably, college in general.

            1. Unfortunately, when refer to both as ‘rights’, then we get pulled into a fuzzy argument, trying to define which ‘rights’ are expand liberty, and which ‘rights’ shrink it by virtue of having to take the production of someone else to satisfy that ‘positive right’.

              A woman has a right to pursue an abortion. A woman demanding her abortion be paid for by her fellow inmates is not a right, it’s a privilege. And it’s a privilege which can be granted or taken away by the whims of the electorate. But her right to persue an abortion can never be taken away, it can just be driven underground.

              Same with marriage. Gays want to get married? They already could. Go stand in front of a priest or whatever, say your I DOs and voila! You’re married. That’s not what they were fighting for. They’re fighting for the privileges bestowed upon the married by the state. The privilege of receiving healthcare coverage, the privilege of losing half your stuff when your partner doesn’t “feel the marriage” anymore. Those are privileges, and again, they’re privileges which may change or morph based upon the whim of the electorate. But no one can stop you from professing your undying love and saying I DO in front of a priest, they can just drive it underground.

        4. It’s the perversion of the definition of rights.

          I blame Tony.

          1. Tony nothing but a slave on a ship arguin’ about who got the flyest chain.

    5. Spain is going back to Franco fascism. Rest of Europe to follow shortly thereafter.

      1. All the more reason for the U.S. to return to much more limited government and much freer markets. We could help stop what’s coming that way.

        1. I honestly believe we are past that tipping point, Pro’L Dib.

          1. No, there’s still good in us. I can feel it.

            1. This kind of hope will be the first thing crushed by the jackboots of change.

              1. And the jackboots of hope.

  6. Generalissimo Francisco Franco might not be quite as dead as all that, it seems.

  7. Why didn’t Mubarak think of this?

  8. Spain is a shit slimeball has-been empire.

  9. “Spain Looks to Ban Photos, Videos of Police”

    Well, obviously they can’t ban senseless violence by the police, and isn’t banning photos and videos the next logical thing?

  10. All I know is that if that happened in America, there would be a bunch of dead cops and a lot of dead innocent civilians. We have seen in the riots in the 60’s and 70’s. The police are NOT the military, they need to get their act in gear. The people control the gov’t, not the other way around!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.