Brickbats

Brickbat: Don't Let Anyone Know

|

A Louisiana mom who was charged with unlawful posting of criminal activity for sharing video of a fight at her son's school says she plans to sue for unlawful arrest. Maegen Adkins-Barras shared the video on Facebook with the message: "This should not be happening. Why do we have to worry so much about our kids at school?"  The next day, she was asked to attend a meeting at the school, where she was handcuffed and taken to jail. The charge was later dropped.

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.

14 responses to “Brickbat: Don't Let Anyone Know

  1. Authorities were trying to send a message here but I can’t figure out what it was. Don’t embarrass our schools?

    1. I would think don’t criticize the school over don’t embarrass the school. Public officials hate criticism.

    2. It’s just sloppy police work. Idiots with badges and system too corrupted by stupidity to do anything about it.

      1. Too many cops that are completely ignorant of the law, and courts that are overly forgiving of mistakes of law by LEOs.

        1. You mean “mistakes”, not mistakes, right?

          …courts are overly forgiving of “mistakes” of law by LEOs.

          1. Oops. 🙂

      2. It wasn’t sloppy. It was malicious.

  2. Universal Citation: LA Rev Stat § 14:107.4 (2017)

    §107.4. Unlawful posting of criminal activity for notoriety and publicity

    A. It shall be unlawful for a person who is either a principal or accessory to a crime to obtain an image of the commission of the crime using any camera, videotape, photo-optical, photo-electric, or any other image recording device and to transfer that image obtained during the commission of the crime by the use of a computer online service, Internet service, or any other means of electronic communication, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, electronic mail, or online messaging service for the purpose of gaining notoriety, publicity, or the attention of the public.

    C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any of the following:…………

    (3) The obtaining, use, or transference of images by any bona fide member of the news media broadcasting a news report through television, cable television, or other telecommunication.

    Do I even need to comment?

    1. Wow…

      Just…

      That’s really….

      Wait, that’s something you just faked up, right? There’s no way that’s an actual law, is it? I mean, we do have a court system and a constitution. Or did I just imagine that part?

    2. Curious line item from section C:

      E. Any evidence resulting from the commission of unlawful filming or recording criminal activity shall be contraband.

      Hmmm… what could that mean?

      So, if you break in to a factory to document illegal dumping of toxic waste, that would be contraband. Since they use the word “evidence” and “contraband”, I’m assuming they mean “not able to be used in a court of law.. or anywhere else”.

      Or let’s say you film an unlawful arrest… and you are the one being arrested unlawfully. But they also charge you with resisting arrest, interfering with an officer, etc. Now is this evidence magically “contraband” under this law?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

  3. Ever heard of the first amendment dumb asses ?

    1. Sure they have heard of it.
      Didn’t it have something to do with a bunch of dead old white guys or something?
      What has that got to do with common sense control of the government’s image?

      1. Well, there is that hidden “unless it is deemed to be important” clause that keeps getting cited by the courts these days…

        But even under that aegis, I don’t see how they can even theoretically justify this one.

    2. In fairness, the law as written is probably pretty easily compliant with the First Amendment. As written, the law is not a prohibition against reporting on the criminal activity or even passing along information about it. It’s a law that prohibits the criminal from profiteering on their crime. In that regard, it’s no different from laws that require criminals who write a book about their crime for forfeit the profits to a victims’ fund, etc.

      However as applied in the case above, the school officials and the arresting officer are idiots who deserve to lose this lawsuit big time.

Please to post comments