Town Wants to Ban Cameras After Cop's Obama Rant Goes Viral

|

This video was released on September 30, 2014. Here's the original write-up:

Nanny of the Month turns five years old this month, and after all these years busybodies still delight in making it it their business to mind your business. Back in September 2009, control freaks put everything from shark tours to apple pie on their hit list. How about this month?

Careful where you toss those table scraps, because Seattle has given garbage collectors the power to fine residents who aren't all in on composting.

A Minnesota pol is going Four Loko over the latest alcohol innovation. The manufacturer of Palcohol says its powdered alcohol will will be a hit with everyone from airlines to backpackers (astronauts?). But if state Rep. Joe Atkins (D) has his way, Gopher State backpackers will be banned from pairing their campfire fried eggs with a freeze-dried Bloody Mary. (The feds now say they approved Palcohol by mistake.)

But on this very special episode, Nanny of the Month zeros in the Garden State.

Remember Richard Recine, the (now former) Helmetta, New Jersey, special officer caught on video declaring that he does not have to abide by the Constitution since "Obama decimated the friggin' Constitution"?

Helmetta officials were plenty embarrassed when the video went viral, and yet they chose to honor the spirit of Recine's rant by pushing for a ban on photography and video in public buildings.

Under the proposed ordinance, citizens would need a permit to capture such moments of candor in the future, although public meetings would be exempt from the requirement.

The ACLU says the ordinance may be unconstitutional. However, violators would still face up to $2,000 in fines and up to 90 days in jail. But it's OK, because officials are cracking down on photography for the sake of the children.

About two minutes.

Follow Nanny of the Month on Twitter (@NannyoftheMonth) and submit your nominees for next month!

Nanny of the Month is written Ted Balaker (@tedbalaker) and produced by Balaker and Matt Edwards (@MattChrisEd). Edited by Edwards. Opening graphics by Meredith Bragg.

To watch previous episodes, go here.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for notifications when new material goes live.

Advertisement

NEXT: Self-guided Unmanned Navy Patrol Boats Make Debut

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Are. . .are we surprised by this?

    No? No, I didn’t think so.

    1. That a local government decides to further decimate the constitution in response to a cops rant about the president decimating the constitution?

      No surprise. Pretty much what you would expect.

  2. But it’s OK, because officials are cracking down on photography for the sake of the children.

    Children have nothing to do with it; they’re out to protect themselves from being exposed or held accountable for their behavior. Any that would propose or pass a regulation like this should be fired or voted out of office.

    1. Voting is not enough. There should be a list of particular rights which cannot be violated. Any official caught blatantly violating them should be fired and charged criminally.

      Now, how could we go about making such a list……

      1. There should be a list of particular rights which cannot be violated.

        That list should specify that it is not meant to be a comprehensive list of rights. Also, the rights should only be acknowledged in a way that places a restriction on the government from interfering with said rights.

  3. When I first heard about Palcohol, the local news outfit immediately went to Senator Moobs to have him tell us how outraged he was.

  4. “Some pictures that have been taken are misleading,” Councilwoman Yvette Bruno said. “Some pictures have been taken of underage children volunteering at the shelter. It needs to be addressed.”

    Then why didn’t the ordnance just prohibit taking video of underage children, rather than ban all videoing?

    1. WTF does “underage” even mean in this context? Is there an age limit for volunteer work?

      1. kbolino|10.5.14 @ 6:12PM|#
        “WTF does “underage” even mean in this context? Is there an age limit for volunteer work?”

        That’s a Tulpa sock; it means “I’m begging for attention!”

    2. Photos of underage children are taken for yearbooks every year by public employees on public property. Unless the underage children cited by the politician are volunteering with no clothing on, what’s the fucking problem?

    3. “Then why didn’t the ordnance just prohibit taking video of underage children, rather than ban all videoing?”

      Because I doubt very much this for-the-children argument is made in good faith.

  5. Government official embarrasses himself (and by extension government) on a video recording?

    Ban video recordings of government officials!

    1. Ban video recordings of government officials!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.