Free Speech

First Amendment Right to Videorecord TSA Patdown of Your Family Member


From Dyer v. Smith, decided Tuesday by Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. (E.D. Va.):

On June 8, 2019, Dustin Dyer, his husband, and their children traveled through the airport in Richmond, Virginia. When the family entered the TSA checkpoint, TSA agents quickly cleared Dyer and the children. The agents did not, however, clear Dyer's husband. They told Dyer's husband that, per TSA policy, they must perform a pat-down search because he carried infant formula that they could not open for testing.

As the pat-down search began, Dyer turned on his cell phone camera and began recording the search. Dyer stood about ten feet away from the pat-down. After about one minute, TSA Agent Natalie Staton noticed Dyer recording and asked him to stop, saying that his recording impeded the ability of the agent performing the pat-down "to do his job." Dyer did not stop recording and asked Staton, "What are you talking about?" Staton then left and returned with her supervisor, Shirrellia Smith.

Dyer asked Smith if he could record and Smith responded, "No, no recording." Dyer stopped recording. Staton then asked Smith to "order Dyer to delete the recording that he had made so far." Smith ordered Dyer to delete the video while Staton watched. "Dyer deleted the recording from his phone while [Staton] looked at the screen of his cell phone …."

TSA agents then allowed Dyer, his husband, and their children to leave the checkpoint for their flight. Dyer later recovered a copy of the deleted video from his cell phone….

"As the Supreme Court has observed, 'the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.'" Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir. 2011). "An important corollary to this interest in protecting the stock of public information is that '[t]here is an undoubted right to gather news "from any source by means within the law."'"

Courts across the country agree that incident to the "right to gather news," citizens have some right to record government officials performing their jobs. The Eleventh and Ninth Circuits recognize a broad right to record matters of public interest. The First Circuit acknowledges a right to record government officials engaged in their duties. Four other circuits [the Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth] recognize a narrower right to record a subset of government officials: law enforcement officers. Considering this growing consensus, this Court finds that the First Amendment protects the right to record government officials performing their duties.

{Recognizing that the First Amendment protects the right to record government officials performing their duties enables "a foremost purpose of the Constitution's guarantee of speech": "to enable every citizen at any time to bring the government and any person in authority to the bar of public opinion by any just criticism upon their conduct in the exercise of the authority which the people have conferred upon them."

In addition, when we protect the right to record public officials, we protect against the degradation of various other constitutional rights. This country's racial unrest highlights this principle. Because a cell phone video captured George Floyd's death, the world watched. The world's reaction to this video—and others—sent millions into the streets in protest. Although the racial reckoning continues, this video and the protests it sparked bent "the arc of the moral universe … towards justice." What if the officers had ordered the video that captured George Floyd's death deleted?}

The First Amendment, however, does not offer absolute protection; the government can regulate activity protected by the First Amendment. The extent to which the government can impose such regulation depends on the type of forum in which the protected activity occurs. In a nonpublic forum—the forum at issue in this case—the government may impose "reasonable" regulations that do not arise from "an effort to suppress the speaker's activity due to disagreement with the speaker's view." Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee (1992) (holding that the government can impose reasonable restrictions on speech in an airport operated by a public authority). Thus, the government can impose reasonable regulations on the right to record government officials performing their duties in Richmond's airport.

Dyer accuses the defendants of prohibiting him from recording the pat-down search of his husband from about ten feet away and ordering him to delete the video from his cell phone. Dyer says that his recording did not interfere with the screening procedure. Accepting the facts asserted by the plaintiff as true, the defendants' demand that Dyer stop recording and delete the captured video plausibly constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the plaintiff's First Amendment right to record government officials performing their duties. In making these allegations, Dyer sufficiently pleads a First Amendment violation.

The court also held that the right was sufficiently clearly established to overcome qualified immunity, and therefore refused to dismiss Dyer's claim.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: February 25, 1841

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. I’m hard put to imagine exactly how recording a pat down from 10 feet away could interfere with anything. The Kleig lights too bright? So it seems such a demand must always be pretextual.

    As a general rule, a citizen should always be entitled to record a government employee doing anything the citizen is permitted to witness; The only obvious motive for demanding such recordings not be made is so that the employee can lie about what happened without being contradicted by objective evidence.

    1. So a known criminal can record the activities of an undercover cop?

      Actually, I’m inclined to say that yours is a very reasonable rule. The government may have justification to stop the subsequent publication of the recording but has no right to stop the recording itself.

      1. Sure, why not? The undercover cop might be breaking the law, after all.

        1. Of course, if the criminal is recording him because he knows he’s an undercover cop, he’s not very undercover. And if he is undercover, is he supposed to say, “You need to stop filming, I’m actually a cop”?

      2. Sure, why not? If it’s illegal to record an undercover cop, that would necessarily and obviously discourage recording any illegal activity, ’cause hey, it might be a cop.

        Which says nothing about the legality of intentionally exposing an undercover cop. But the mere act of recording (or publicly posting the recording to a public place, assuming it is otherwise a legal recording to show) shouldn’t be controversial.

        1. Had a thought later.

          A few years back there was a case where a bunch of motorcyclists and a SUV had an altercation on the road. Accounts differed on who “started it”†, but the end result was the motorcylists surrounded the SUV and slowed down, forcing him to pull over.

          After things stopped, one of the motorcylists pulled off his helmet and used it to bash in one of the SUV’s windows.

          This was all recorded on a cellphone camera, of course.

          After the fact, the cellphone video of the window-smashing made it online, and internet sleuths being internet sleuths, they started identifying the motorcyclists involved. And it turned out that window-smasher was a cop. His department made a vague statement about how he’d been undercover at the time, and that’s why he was committing crimes.

          I never saw a follow-up article so I don’t know how it all turned out in the end.

          I bring this up because if it is illegal to record an undercover cop, then the scared kid in the SUV who recorded the attack on the vehicle was committing a crime. And that seems like it’d be a rather egregious breach of justice to me.
          †the motorcyclists said they were passing the SUV when it intentionally swerved and tried to kill a guy.

      3. What’s this “known criminal” business in the first place?

    2. Way back in November 2001, a TSA agent asked me not to take photos of a checkpoint. At that time, my understanding was that they were worried terrorists would develop an understanding of TSA procedures and vulnerabilities.

      Twenty years later, I don’t think that still flies, and I’m not sure if that was one of the defenses here.

    3. Brett. You made a good point. No doubt the TSA is recording all all activity. So is the problem the publication? If it is the recording itself, then the plaintiff should demand the TSA erase its recordings too, in fairness.

  2. “What if the officers had ordered the video that captured George Floyd’s death deleted?}”

    According to the article, millions of dollars in damages, and many deaths would have been prevented.

    1. I agree with that self evident argument. The dumbass lawyer on the bench is too stupid to see that. The Floyd incident supports the erasing of the recording in a gigantic way. There is nothing stupider than the lawyer. Among lawyers, federal jufges are the stupidest.

    2. No, you don’t get to trample rights that easily.

      Go back to the original harm. That was the cop killing George Floyd. That is what triggered the protests. After that, go after the burners, looters, and murderers who created their own original harm. The video of the cop killing George Floyd did not trigger that harm.

    3. Suppose someone had video taped Michael Brown’s interaction with Darren Wilson in Ferguson Mo.? Perhaps a lot of property damage and injuries might have been averted.

      1. Good example. A dash cam would have done the trick, if I recall correctly that he was coming at the cop car from the front and side.

    4. Yeah! And that jack-ass who recorded Rodney King being beaten by the cops! He’s the bad guy too!

      And who was it that took that photograph of the Kent State shooting? How irresponsible!

      And why do we know about Tiananmen Square? So reckless!

      (For fear of being misunderstood, I’m mocking this idea that the act of recording official abuse can be reasonably blamed for reactions to exposed official abuse. It’s like the people that whine it’s worse for you to expose them as a racist then it is for them to be a racist. It only makes sense if you’re fine with the abuse in the first place.)

  3. Not sure. Floyd died of the fentanyl in his meth. That recording was misleading. The damages from the riots caused by the recording were in the $billions. Also, people did not realize, you can’t loudly plead for your Mommy if you are being choked, and can’t breathe.

    With badges and facial recognition, the publication pf the recording doxxes the official, endangers safety.

    The TSA screening is a big government, rent seeking hoax. Strip searching buxom blondes and grandmas going to Disney does not prevent terrorism. It brings opprobrium on the government.

    Hey, dumbass lawyer, start doing your job. Go iut and kill the terrorists. Stop coddling criminals. Stop harassing regular people and ripping off the taxpayer with massive worthless make work, you dumdass traitor.

    1. No, George Floyd died from the cop suffocating him. Whether he would have died from anything else later is immaterial, whether that was 10 seconds, one hour, o one century later.

      1. How do you restrain someone who refuses to follow lawful commands? Taze them? Mace them? Shoot them in the kneecaps from 15 yards away?

        1. You have listed three wrong ways of restraining someone. Good. The cop showed a fourth way to not restrain someone.

        2. Once Floyd was on the ground and in handcuffs, they could have let him sit up. If he had run away again, they could have grabbed him again.

          Granted, that increases the chances he or an officer gets hurt in one of the potential subsequent struggles, but my guess is that’s going to be the procedure going forward.

        3. Why do you need to “restrain” someone who is already on the ground?

          1. So they don’t get up again and walk away, after they struggled and refused to let you put them in the back of a police car?

            1. You do have a point, but why continue a chokehold or a knee to the neck for five minutes?

              1. I’m not going to argue that the length of time wasn’t excessive. Just that it wasn’t unreasonable to use the knee hold in the first place. Maybe they should have just sat him against that nearby post, and cuffed him to it.

                I actually think the cops screwed up there, though the autopsy report persuaded me that Floyd was probably in the process of dying anyway; He was a walking pharmacy and in pretty bad shape before the cops showed up.

                1. I don’t find the argument that he was in the process of dying persuasive. If I use a pillow to suffocate a hospice patient who will be dead in an hour anyway, that’s still murder. Why is that different from this?

                  1. Because suffocation reliably kills people. So intent is obvious.

                    The knee hold virtually never kills people.

                    1. The knee hold virtually never kills people

                      You get this from…

                    2. “You get this from…”

                      FWIW, right after the incident I saw it discussed by a dozen odd officers, whose unanimous opinion seemed to be:

                      1)Nothing the matter with the knee on neck as performed here, good technique for control, not dangerous to suspect, and…
                      2)You don’t leave people handcuffed behind their back laying down like that, you set them up, because of the risk of positional asphyxiation, and that this was well known enough that failing to do so was unconscionable.

                      (and other things, like doing nothing when you can’t find a pulse)

                      This is far outside my area of expertise; I just pass it on FWIW. I found it interesting that you find two general views of the subject in online debates, neither of which comports with what those officers thought.

                    3. I doubt anyone here are experts on this. I so employ a certain res ipsa situation with knee on neck and then death.

                      This whole Floyd death trutherism is really something, though.

            2. He was handcuffed behind his back, on the ground, with four cops standing around him. How was he going to get up and walk away?

              Also, you have not accurately characterized what happened at all. He was put in the back of the car — and then Chauvin pulled him out and put him on the ground.

      2. Your ipse dixit contradicts the coroner report.

        1. I suppose I could google “ipse dixit” and see what it means, but its meta meaning is clear: you are using lawyer jargon to impress the crowd. I thought you hated lawyers and all their trappings. Please disengage form your own petard and carry on elsewhere.

          1. It’s Latin for “because I said so.”

            1. Krychek, Latin is the language of the Catholic Church. Any lawyer utterance with a Latin phrase violates the Establishment Clause of our secular nation, and is void. Imagine my quoting the Sharia in Arabic in a legal decision.

              1. We should have a contest to see who can find the most logical fallacies in Daivd’s post.

                1. Well, clearly English is the language of the LDS church, so all government records in English are void under the Establishment Clause. And of course, the Establishment Clause is void as well. Res ipsa loquitur. Circular Behar vernacular.

                  1. Lots of people speak English, around the world. Only one people speak Latin, the Catholic Church. Old Arabic from the Sharia is far more acceptable, being in use outside of mosques.

                    1. That may be true now, but it was not true at the time Latin became the language of the law. To the extent that Latin still is the language of the law, that’s more from old habits being hard to break.

                      Though see here:


                    2. Well into the 20th century students in English Public Schools were being taught to read and write Latin and Greek.

                      I had a Latin tutor in the US in the mid sixties as a treatment for a reading problem, which turned out to be dyslexiabut I still can’t spell.

                    3. Wow, I wish I had thought of that argument in 1975 when I was taking Latin in high school and was required to read passages in Latin aloud to the class.

                      (Somehow I don’t think I would have prevailed though…)

                    4. Badlib. Feel free to sext in Latin, if you wish. You should not be allowed to promote a religion in any legal utterance in our secular nation. Any Latin in a judge decision is intolerable, and should be reversible error per se. The per se basis is the Establishment Clause.

                      What do you think about the elements of murder in the laws of most states? They plagiarize the elements of mortal sin from the catechism of the 13th Century Church, except they are hideously perverted by the lawyer. Even the Medieval Church did not believe minds could be read. Their faith was that God would read your intent and judge your soul after death. Mind reading is a super power of God. God also knows the future and can prevent accidents.

                      I read the Sharia. I liked 90%. It is the basis of far more effective jurisprudence than our worthless system in utter failure. Am I allowed to copy it word for word when drafting a statute? What if I copied it in Old Arabic in the statute? Is that cool in your book?

                      Volokh is extremely knowledgeable about the minutae of First Amendment precedent. As an Ivy indoctrinated lawyer, he is oblivious to this problem. Point it out, he goes all denier of the text before his eyes.

                    5. Volokh is extremely knowledgeable about the minutae of First Amendment precedent. As an Ivy indoctrinated lawyer,

                      Nope. Wrong again.

                    6. David. Volokh has the highest native IQ in the entire lawyer profession. Only Judge Kosinski may have a higher one. They are very impressive in grasping and using subject matter outside their profession. Within a short time, they can run circles around people in a business that is not theirs.

                      When they passed 1L, they became lawyer dumbasses, stupider than a kid in Life Skills class learning to eat with a spoon. That kid on the Supreme Court would increase the common sense of the decisions and the clarity of the writing by a mile.

                    7. For fear of getting into this very strange pissing match…

                      Volokh has the highest native IQ in the entire lawyer profession. Only Judge Kosinski may have a higher one.

                      Then I would hope he knows that “IQ” is basically worthless at evaluating how “smart” someone is.

                      IQ Tests were designed, and are effective, at identifying people with mental disabilities. Beyond that use, they aren’t useful.

                      Which is why if you’re seeing someone bragging about their IQ (or as in this case, someone bragging on their behalf) you know that they’re either (A) an idiot who doesn’t understand what they’re bragging about or (B) a con who thinks you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand what they’re bragging about.

                    8. The IQ %ile at age 7 will correlate your income %ile at age 50.

                      The lawyer is an IQ denier. It banned the most validated test in history, being used to help black kids with special ed.

          2. The law belongs to me, the public, not to the lawyer. Get the fuck off my property. You are stinking it up.

            1. Go play in traffic.

              1. So you could sue a driver for my irresponsible behavior?

        2. Your lies contradict common decency. The coroner’s report did not say he died of an overdose.

          1. Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system. A level 3 is fatal in those not used to opiates. He was not habituated to opiates, being a meth addict.

  4. I’ve never understood the rationale for claiming that someone who is in a public place can’t be photographed or videotaped, whether that person works for the government or not. There’s no expectation of privacy. These days, there’s probably a security camera recording everything anyway. Celebrities are routinely stalked by tabloid photographers. What is even the argument that you can’t photograph or videotape the police?

    1. Police union contracts stipulate no recorded oversight?

      1. The public is not a party to those agreements.

      2. I have a contract with myself that says I can record whatever I want.

    2. The only answer to the panopticon surveillance state, is private recording. If privacy is going to be dead, it needs to be completely dead, not just when the government finds its death convenient.

  5. Self evident lesson still not learned from Floyd recording by dumbass lawyer. Police carry Narcan nasal spray. Aplly to anyone unconscious. Helps if on opiates. Harmless if not. Floyd should have been Narcaned. The recording rebutted the allegation of choking.

    1. The recording did no such thing. Narcan would have saved Floyd from the cop kneeling on his airway only if the cop had had to remove his knee from George Floyd’s airway to administer the Narcan.

      1. Cop wasn’t kneeling on his airway, though. He was kneeling on the *side* of his neck.

        I mean, did you think he was flat on his back or something?

  6. These TSA officers should be gassed.

  7. From a security POV, I don’t see this as protected 1A activity and TSA should be able to regulate photography in the screening areas.

    Look peoples, the bad guys are there, they’re actively looking for weaknesses, and they’re pernicious (and don’t even mind the risk of getting caught).

    Allowing people to video screening areas can allow the bad guys to look for patterns (guard placements, changes, actions, etc), physical layouts (people flow, cameras, distances), and other security measures that are not readily observable but which could be detected by reviewing video.

    Look, I don’t like the measures either and maybe some things can be scaled back; at the same time, I don’t want planes blowing up either.

    Not videoing in a screening area is a tiny price to pay.

    1. What bad guys? The TSA’s own statistics show they’ve stopped no one. Their testers get through 95% of the time, so they can’t even stop them.

      As for security, as has been said by others, the guy was recording exactly what he and everyone else could see with their Mark I eyeballs. He wasn’t snooping around their break room, or where they keep keys and weapons.

      1. Yeah, the idea that they’re keeping secret from bad guys what every air traveler sees in person is crazy.

        The truth is they don’t want their own misbehavior, or lies about passengers’ misbehavior, documented. They want it to remain “he said, she said”, with all ties going to the government.

        1. Statists use this argument a lot. For a while, Giuliani, who is no defender of freedom, tried to prohibit taking pictures of bridges in New York City.

          Obviously, secure areas are different. I don’t claim that I have a 1st Amendment right to wander around the Pentagon.

    2. The terrorist can just sit there and watch, or bring their own baby formula so they can experience the pat down first hand, etc, etc.

      If having a video is really important to them for some odd reason, they can record surreptitiously.

      Security by obscurity rarely works, especially when you are doing whatever it is in a public space.

    3. If we deny rights just because of some someone claims something called “security” then we do not have rights. Also the only way we have to actually hold officials responsible for actions is by observing them as they will hide any and everything as that gives them more power over you.

      You may trust all of our “leaders” or “law enforcement” but the reality is that anyone that is given power will use it and the less power they have the more free we become.

      As others say security by obscurity does not really work and never has.

    4. Let’s change the scenario a bit. You are returning through a CBP checkpoint after a foreign trip. Take out you cell phone and or camera and it will be confiscated and you are likely to be subjected to a very long interview.
      Obviously one rights at the US border are severely restricted… unless you are entering illegally through a hole in the Trump wall.

      1. Yes, the CBP checkpoint rules are abusive too, and lack a good justification.

    5. Not videoing in a screening area is a tiny price to pay.

      But is that where it will stop, apedad? I do not disagree with your comments about security. Seems common sense, right? We don’t want the bad guys to figure out the security arrangements easily.

      I worry about giving the government the discretion to decide where our 1A rights can be exercised. How do you address that concern?

    6. I actually work in a place where operational security is a serious concern, so I know what you’re talking about.

      I also know you’re talking shit, because operational security can never rely on public events not being recorded. That path, “just don’t record it, and we’re safe”, is not towards security, but denial.

      So I reject this argument. Operational security cannot be used to justify banning the recording of public events, and any argument to that effect is either delusional or duplicitous.

  8. There is something else I just have to say … the headline about “family member”, coupled (tee hee hee) with “his husband”, makes one wonder about how much wondering went into that headline.

  9. I wonder why the husband isn’t named. The children certainly but an adult witness not being named seems odd.

    1. Possibly because the ‘husband’ wasn’t a party to the suit, and so his name wasn’t relevant?

  10. I’m puzzled by how carrying a questionable object (baby formula) triggers a pat-down. How does the pat-down help TSA figure out whether the baby formula is OK?

    If you’re carrying something else, that can be detected by a pat-down but not by the scanners, that somehow combines with the baby formula to be dangerous, just give one of them to your accomplice. One of you gets a pat-down and comes through clean, and the other walks through the scanner and comes through clean.

    I have to wonder whether this is also a 4A unreasonable search issue.

    1. TSA will look at any powder, I frequently carry bottles of various seasonings through airports and they always inspect them and usually run them though that detector thingee. I’ve never had them pat me down although the sometime want to touch me.

    2. Hypothetically, I suppose they could be concerned about a two component explosive, or something like that. If it wasn’t really milk in the bottle, you could be hiding something else in your pants, mix them on the flight, and presto! Plastic explosives.

      Or they just wanted to punish somebody for carrying a bottle policy didn’t permit them to confiscate…

      1. It’s purely punishment. I only accidentally left something metallic in my pocket. Rather than have me take it out and go back through, they insisted on a pat down.

        1. I’m just glad that time I flew on company business after practicing at the range was back in the 80’s. We were coming out of security on the *return* leg of the trip, I reached into my pocket and pulled out a dud 9mm cartridge. Metal detectors weren’t set very sensitive back then.

          1. These days you would get flagged anyway, dud round or no, because of the powder residue.

            And coming very soon, you would probably be flagged because they know you own firearms.

  11. “Dyer later recovered a copy of the deleted video from his cell phone”

    I think this is the funniest part of the whole piece.

  12. Heh. I remember a few years back there was that TSA guy in Denver that got busted for getting way too feely with the men he was frisking.

    When that story broke I realized that I was actually one of his victims, and more than once (I have family in Denver so I use that airport). In my case I wouldn’t make any big deal out of my victimhood. I didn’t get off on it but I remember thinking oh man this guy is waaaay too thorough.

    I’m an adult but if he was doing that to kids anyone can obviously see where there there would be a problem.

    1. I generally get the pat down these days, because thanks to prostate surgery I have to wear incontinence pads. (It’s not technically an absolute necessity, but if I happen to sneeze…) The TSA look at me and think I’ve got something stuffed into my briefs.

      Because I do.

      1. Oh come on, Brett, you’re just happy to see us!

  13. Denial of QI to supervisor, especially at this stage of the litigation, I can understand. Not so much about the agent. TSA is a pain, sure, but it’s there for a specific reason: to ensure against explosives or other weapons being brought on the plane. The mere fact that there has not been as much recent publicity about the need for those measures does not mean that it is outweighed by others. If the recording was protected by the First Amendment, TSA should communicate that to its supervisory staff.

    1. No, employees should not get away with a crime just because their bosses didn’t tell them it was illegal.

      1. Depending on the context, I’m 100% A-OK with prosecuting the boss for the crime instead of the low-level employee.

        Depends on the crime. In this case? There’s been no moral or ethical question, since Rodney King, that recording cops is always OK. While the boss shouldn’t have told the employee otherwise, both can reasonably be expected to know better.

        So go after both.

      2. Is what the agent did a crime? What crime was it? Was Dyer arrested or charged with a crime?

        Furthermore, the defendants only moved for QI on the First Amendment claim, not the Fourth Amendment claim.

  14. My most memorable experience with the TSA was a number of years ago, and was related to clothing.

    Specifically, I was wearing a kilt that day (or “skirt” if you object to me having boxers on underneath), and after I went through the x-ray machine (or whichever machine was in flavor that year) one of the guys said the kilt could be concealling something, so I’d have to be pat down. I gave him a stare, pulled the kilt right off (it was one of those snap ones) and dropped the kilt on the conveyor belt to be scanned.

    I then walked back through the x-ray machine in my boxers and gave the agent a “are you satisfied” look. No more complaints.

    According to my husband (boyfriend at the time), there were a number of folks who were appreciative of my little display.

    Anyway, to the topic at hand, the TSA is full of shit. If the law is somehow on their side, that’s a error that needs to be corrected, and any judge worth their salt will see that immediately. But there are many judges who have no interest in justice, so we’ll see.

  15. Is what the agent did a crime? What crime was it? Was Dyer arrested or charged with a crime?

    Furthermore, the defendants only moved for QI on the First Amendment claim, not the Fourth Amendment claim.

  16. I’m inclined to think that one bright line rule should be that the government can’t require you to delete a video or destroy film of one of these interactions, EVER. No matter what the rule is on stopping you from filming.

  17. “The world’s reaction to this video—and others—sent millions into the streets in protest.”

    Mostly peacefully. Spoken like a judge whose own courthouse remained safe.

    A key reason recording is useful is that it limits the ability of government officials to make stuff up. It doesn’t resolve all ambiguity (eg, was Floyd suffocated to death or die or a drug overdose), but it is a good antidote to the worst whoppers by the officials who want to stop the recording.

  18. Brownshirts, Blackshirts and now Blueshirts. Look, look, UN blue too.

Please to post comments