Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Kansas passes first bathroom ban in U.S. that regulate not only publicā€”but private bathrooms. Bill empowers citizen "bounty hunters" to enter private businessā€”and sue for financial damages if they use "wrong" bathroom. Bill passed House & Senate with veto proof majority to over ride Governor Laura Kelly's likely veto....

LongTimeHistory's profile picture

LongTimešŸ¤“FirstTimešŸ‘Øā€šŸ’»

173,347 subscribers

37,293 views ā€¢ 8 months ago ā€¢via X (Twitter)

ComedyNews & PoliticsEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossiā€¢ Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Jazz Cathcart, a pastor from Asheville, NC, sends his daughter to private school because the public school district where he lives allows boys to use the girlsā€™ bathroom. But many of his congregants do not have the resources to put their children in private schools, and they are concerned for their daughters' safety. He is insisting that North Carolina legislators protect women and girls in private spaces - like bathrooms and locker rooms - in his community. #protectourdaughtersnc #ncpol
1:36

Jazz Cathcart, a pastor from Asheville, NC, sends his daughter to private school because the public school district where he lives allows boys to use the girlsā€™ bathroom. But many of his congregants do not have the resources to put their children in private schools, and they are concerned for their daughters' safety. He is insisting that North Carolina legislators protect women and girls in private spaces - like bathrooms and locker rooms - in his community. #protectourdaughtersnc #ncpol

šŸ§­ NC Values

14,236 views ā€¢ 6 months ago

šŸšØExpired Tabs Bill SB 6176 Moves Forward - Sheriff . Calls for Civil Disobedience āš ļøNEW DETAILS: WA SB 6176 passed out of the Transportation Committee on 2/5 and now moves to the floor for a full vote of the Senate. The bill was amended in committee to remove the provision allowing expiredā€‘tab enforcement in private paid parking lots but otherwise maintains the billā€™s core expansion of state enforcement authority. The bill still allows ticketing of parked vehicles on public streets and public property, imposes mandatory fines, and authorizes impoundment after 45 days. Penalties for parkedā€‘vehicle violations are adjusted slightly to align with movingā€‘violation fines. It is better, but still a very bad bill. 1/2
2:33

šŸšØExpired Tabs Bill SB 6176 Moves Forward - Sheriff . Calls for Civil Disobedience āš ļøNEW DETAILS: WA SB 6176 passed out of the Transportation Committee on 2/5 and now moves to the floor for a full vote of the Senate. The bill was amended in committee to remove the provision allowing expiredā€‘tab enforcement in private paid parking lots but otherwise maintains the billā€™s core expansion of state enforcement authority. The bill still allows ticketing of parked vehicles on public streets and public property, imposes mandatory fines, and authorizes impoundment after 45 days. Penalties for parkedā€‘vehicle violations are adjusted slightly to align with movingā€‘violation fines. It is better, but still a very bad bill. 1/2

Conservative Ladies of America - WA State

18,873 views ā€¢ 8 months ago

Imagine fighting a bitter legal battle for your transgender son's right to use the correct school bathroom, only for your own lawyer to accidentally label him as mentally disabled in front of the judge. That is the heartbreaking dilemma this family faces when they sue a private school for unfairly expelling their son, Sam. The legal team initially tries to win using a clever loophole about the school's dress code and bathroom door signs. Which side would you stand on?
2:58

Imagine fighting a bitter legal battle for your transgender son's right to use the correct school bathroom, only for your own lawyer to accidentally label him as mentally disabled in front of the judge. That is the heartbreaking dilemma this family faces when they sue a private school for unfairly expelling their son, Sam. The legal team initially tries to win using a clever loophole about the school's dress code and bathroom door signs. Which side would you stand on?

Wike God'sgift

36,129 views ā€¢ 1 month ago

Colorado Democrats introduce a bill to make citizens liable for civil damages if they call in a tip to ICE You do not hate the Democrat Party enough ā€œIf you're a civilian who calls in a tip to ICE, you could potentially face civil damages. So SB 26-005 in Colorado, Quietly creates a new civil lawsuit for immigration enforcement. And because it labels any person participating in immigration enforcement, it raises a real question: Could a private citizen who called in the individual who's injured during immigration enforcement activity be sued or face legal action. The bill doesn't clearly exclude private citizens or protect good faith reporting at all. So day one of Colorado State Legislative session is off to a crazy start.ā€œ
0:49

Colorado Democrats introduce a bill to make citizens liable for civil damages if they call in a tip to ICE You do not hate the Democrat Party enough ā€œIf you're a civilian who calls in a tip to ICE, you could potentially face civil damages. So SB 26-005 in Colorado, Quietly creates a new civil lawsuit for immigration enforcement. And because it labels any person participating in immigration enforcement, it raises a real question: Could a private citizen who called in the individual who's injured during immigration enforcement activity be sued or face legal action. The bill doesn't clearly exclude private citizens or protect good faith reporting at all. So day one of Colorado State Legislative session is off to a crazy start.ā€œ

Wall Street Apes

211,187 views ā€¢ 8 months ago

Another remarkable clip from Wienerā€™s SB 934 hearing. Hearing Wiener imagine being a parent is bizarre, but I want to focus on the committeeā€™s inability to understand the bill they are voting on. Few realize California lawmakers have been inserting ā€œgenderā€ nonsense into state law for decades. It starts in 1998, when ā€œgenderā€ is added to the hate crime code. Then it appears in the Education Code, opening the door to boys in girlsā€™ bathrooms. By 2003, ā€œgender identityā€ enters the Government Code. In 2005, female-only public accommodations are gone. In 2007, the biological definition of sex is stripped from the Education Code. By 2013, girlsā€™ sports are no longer protected as female-only. In 2017, self-ID comes to driverā€™s licenses. By 2021, it reaches womenā€™s prisons. Iā€™ve watched many of the hearings & the pattern is always the same. Every bill is ā€œminor.ā€ Just ā€œcodifying.ā€ Just ā€œclarifying.ā€ Just ā€œaligning statutes.ā€ Opponents are dismissed as confused or hysterical. ā€œThis wonā€™t let boys into girlsā€™ bathrooms. Youā€™re overreacting.ā€ Then the bill passes and that is exactly what it does. Nothing is different with SB 934. All the committee members (even the Rā€™s) seem sold on the idea the SB 934 merely changes the statute of limitations, nothing more. But anyone with a working brain can read the text of SB 934 (itā€™s not long) and compare it to the existing CA law on conversion therapy. Under existing law, SB 1172, enforcement of conversion therapy is limited to licensing boards and deals only with ā€œsexual orientation.ā€ However, SB 934 explicitly allows a plaintiff to bring a civil action (lawsuit) for ā€œgender identity change effortsā€ and recover damages. That is a massive expansion of liability. And even if this were ā€œjustā€ a statute of limitations bill, that should raise a different question: why are we continuing to expand a legal regime in a highly controversial and contested space? But never mind all that. The committee is convinced this is a simple, small bill that increases the statute of limitations. Weā€™ve seen this play out for 25 years. And each time, lawmakers say: this changes nothing or very little. And each time, the law expands far beyond what was promised. SB 934 follows the same script.
3:54

Another remarkable clip from Wienerā€™s SB 934 hearing. Hearing Wiener imagine being a parent is bizarre, but I want to focus on the committeeā€™s inability to understand the bill they are voting on. Few realize California lawmakers have been inserting ā€œgenderā€ nonsense into state law for decades. It starts in 1998, when ā€œgenderā€ is added to the hate crime code. Then it appears in the Education Code, opening the door to boys in girlsā€™ bathrooms. By 2003, ā€œgender identityā€ enters the Government Code. In 2005, female-only public accommodations are gone. In 2007, the biological definition of sex is stripped from the Education Code. By 2013, girlsā€™ sports are no longer protected as female-only. In 2017, self-ID comes to driverā€™s licenses. By 2021, it reaches womenā€™s prisons. Iā€™ve watched many of the hearings & the pattern is always the same. Every bill is ā€œminor.ā€ Just ā€œcodifying.ā€ Just ā€œclarifying.ā€ Just ā€œaligning statutes.ā€ Opponents are dismissed as confused or hysterical. ā€œThis wonā€™t let boys into girlsā€™ bathrooms. Youā€™re overreacting.ā€ Then the bill passes and that is exactly what it does. Nothing is different with SB 934. All the committee members (even the Rā€™s) seem sold on the idea the SB 934 merely changes the statute of limitations, nothing more. But anyone with a working brain can read the text of SB 934 (itā€™s not long) and compare it to the existing CA law on conversion therapy. Under existing law, SB 1172, enforcement of conversion therapy is limited to licensing boards and deals only with ā€œsexual orientation.ā€ However, SB 934 explicitly allows a plaintiff to bring a civil action (lawsuit) for ā€œgender identity change effortsā€ and recover damages. That is a massive expansion of liability. And even if this were ā€œjustā€ a statute of limitations bill, that should raise a different question: why are we continuing to expand a legal regime in a highly controversial and contested space? But never mind all that. The committee is convinced this is a simple, small bill that increases the statute of limitations. Weā€™ve seen this play out for 25 years. And each time, lawmakers say: this changes nothing or very little. And each time, the law expands far beyond what was promised. SB 934 follows the same script.

WomenAreReal

25,297 views ā€¢ 5 months ago

Speaker Mike Johnson just announced that the House will ban transgender women from Capitol bathrooms. "Here's a fun fact about bathrooms: more U.S. Congressmen have been convicted of assaulting someone in a public bathroom than trans people have been." Rep. Nancy Mace intro duced a bill to bar transgender women from facilities on Capitol Hill, a response to the election earlier this month of Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-Del.). McBride will be the first openly transgender person in Congress. Did you know that 8% of trans people surveyed had had a urinary tract infection as a direct result of avoiding the restroom altogether? "The truth is, we trans people are so much more scared of you than you are of us," continues Jackson Bird as he begins his Ted Talk. MAGA Republicans have nothing but faux outrage over who's using the bathroom. They have no idea what it really means to be truly afraid of taking care of the basic needs that most of us take for granted. #DemVoice1 #wtpBLUE #DemsUnited #ProudBlue
1:47

Speaker Mike Johnson just announced that the House will ban transgender women from Capitol bathrooms. "Here's a fun fact about bathrooms: more U.S. Congressmen have been convicted of assaulting someone in a public bathroom than trans people have been." Rep. Nancy Mace intro duced a bill to bar transgender women from facilities on Capitol Hill, a response to the election earlier this month of Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-Del.). McBride will be the first openly transgender person in Congress. Did you know that 8% of trans people surveyed had had a urinary tract infection as a direct result of avoiding the restroom altogether? "The truth is, we trans people are so much more scared of you than you are of us," continues Jackson Bird as he begins his Ted Talk. MAGA Republicans have nothing but faux outrage over who's using the bathroom. They have no idea what it really means to be truly afraid of taking care of the basic needs that most of us take for granted. #DemVoice1 #wtpBLUE #DemsUnited #ProudBlue

LongTimešŸ¤“FirstTimešŸ‘Øā€šŸ’»

31,538 views ā€¢ 1 year ago

JUST IN: Rep. Nancy Mace rips ABC News reporter, says she won't allow "a pen*s" in women's locker rooms and bathrooms. The comment came after Mace introduced a bathroom bill after the first openly transgender person, Sarah McBride, was elected to Congress. "I'm not going to allow biological men into women's private spaces." "I will stand in the way of anyone on the radical left who thinks that it's okay for a pen*s to be in a women's locker room or a bathroom or a changing room."
2:47

JUST IN: Rep. Nancy Mace rips ABC News reporter, says she won't allow "a pen*s" in women's locker rooms and bathrooms. The comment came after Mace introduced a bathroom bill after the first openly transgender person, Sarah McBride, was elected to Congress. "I'm not going to allow biological men into women's private spaces." "I will stand in the way of anyone on the radical left who thinks that it's okay for a pen*s to be in a women's locker room or a bathroom or a changing room."

Collin Rugg

1,387,111 views ā€¢ 1 year ago

HISTORIC: Rep. Brandon Gill Announces The Total Shut Down of the US House to ALL Senate Bills Until the Save Act is Passed. Over 50 Members of Congress will REFUSE All Legislation until Senate Passes the SAVE America Act. "I'm not going to vote for any bill that the Senate sends over to the house, other than DHS funding, because I think that's particularly relevant, and that happened before all of this, but I'm not going to vote for any Senate bill that they send over until they pass the SAVE AMERICA Act, and I've got a lot of colleagues who agree with me on that."
3:45

HISTORIC: Rep. Brandon Gill Announces The Total Shut Down of the US House to ALL Senate Bills Until the Save Act is Passed. Over 50 Members of Congress will REFUSE All Legislation until Senate Passes the SAVE America Act. "I'm not going to vote for any bill that the Senate sends over to the house, other than DHS funding, because I think that's particularly relevant, and that happened before all of this, but I'm not going to vote for any Senate bill that they send over until they pass the SAVE AMERICA Act, and I've got a lot of colleagues who agree with me on that."

Benny Johnson

118,841 views ā€¢ 6 months ago

A 9th grade girl spoke to us anonymously about encountering a boy in the girls' bathroom in her public high school in Buncombe County. Not only was this uncomfortable and confusing, but she also fears backlash from administrators and peers for speaking out about it. She is asking NC legislators to pass a law to protect her safety and privacy in bathrooms and locker rooms at school. If you or your daughter live in NC and have encountered a boy in a girlsā€™ private space such as a bathroom or locker room in a public school, university, rape crisis center, or prison - please contact us to share your story and help make a change. Contact us: protectourdaughters@ncvalues.org
1:38

A 9th grade girl spoke to us anonymously about encountering a boy in the girls' bathroom in her public high school in Buncombe County. Not only was this uncomfortable and confusing, but she also fears backlash from administrators and peers for speaking out about it. She is asking NC legislators to pass a law to protect her safety and privacy in bathrooms and locker rooms at school. If you or your daughter live in NC and have encountered a boy in a girlsā€™ private space such as a bathroom or locker room in a public school, university, rape crisis center, or prison - please contact us to share your story and help make a change. Contact us: [email protected]

šŸ§­ NC Values

22,400 views ā€¢ 6 months ago

This State Rep from Stratford, NH, a man (Billie Butler) pretending to be a woman in the NH House, did his first speech at the well today, in opposition to my 'no boys in girls private spaces' bill. The other day he walked out of a stall in the women's restroom of the State House and the Democrat female Reps waiting in line clapped as he stepped out, cheering him on as he invaded our privacy. Anyone else thinks it's creepy that his FB post says "baby's first words"? This craziness has to stop. He is clearly not a woman and I don't want him in my bathroom. My bill passed the House 184-154. Now on to the Senate!
0:21

This State Rep from Stratford, NH, a man (Billie Butler) pretending to be a woman in the NH House, did his first speech at the well today, in opposition to my 'no boys in girls private spaces' bill. The other day he walked out of a stall in the women's restroom of the State House and the Democrat female Reps waiting in line clapped as he stepped out, cheering him on as he invaded our privacy. Anyone else thinks it's creepy that his FB post says "baby's first words"? This craziness has to stop. He is clearly not a woman and I don't want him in my bathroom. My bill passed the House 184-154. Now on to the Senate!

Lisa Mazur

226,901 views ā€¢ 6 months ago

SB 1756, the Medical Freedom Act, passed 14 - 8 in the Florida Senate Rules Committee yesterday. Supporters of the bill successfully eliminated a dangerous amendment that would have allowed private schools to deny religious exemptions, and added an amendment that strengthened the bill by removing the sunset clause on Floridaā€™s mRNA vaccine mandate ban ā€” ensuring that mRNA vaccines can never be mandated now or in the future. The bill strengthens parental rights by adding a conscientious exemption in Florida (expanding beyond the stateā€™s existing religious and medical exemptions), while reinforcing informed consent and medical freedom so families have full transparency and can choose what is best for them. The bill will also allow ivermectin to be available behind the counter with a pharmacy consult. With SB 1756 advancing to the Senate floor, attention now turns to the House. HB 917 has not yet been heard in committee, and Florida families are urging House leadership to schedule the bill so this important legislation can continue moving forward. Take action here: šŸ”—Link in stories #FreedomFlorida #MAHA #ParentalRights
2:44

SB 1756, the Medical Freedom Act, passed 14 - 8 in the Florida Senate Rules Committee yesterday. Supporters of the bill successfully eliminated a dangerous amendment that would have allowed private schools to deny religious exemptions, and added an amendment that strengthened the bill by removing the sunset clause on Floridaā€™s mRNA vaccine mandate ban ā€” ensuring that mRNA vaccines can never be mandated now or in the future. The bill strengthens parental rights by adding a conscientious exemption in Florida (expanding beyond the stateā€™s existing religious and medical exemptions), while reinforcing informed consent and medical freedom so families have full transparency and can choose what is best for them. The bill will also allow ivermectin to be available behind the counter with a pharmacy consult. With SB 1756 advancing to the Senate floor, attention now turns to the House. HB 917 has not yet been heard in committee, and Florida families are urging House leadership to schedule the bill so this important legislation can continue moving forward. Take action here: šŸ”—Link in stories #FreedomFlorida #MAHA #ParentalRights

Global Wellness Forum

22,092 views ā€¢ 7 months ago

The Banter Ban is coming to a pub near you. But what does it actually mean? šŸŗ Employers will be required to take ā€œall reasonable stepsā€ to protect their employees from third-party, non-sexual harassment. That includes conversations, remarks and jokes that aren't directed at an employee, but which they overhear and find offensive or upsetting. Bonkers right? How are publicans supposed to shield employees from overhearing the banter of drunk customers? The government has quietly published an 'impact assessment' estimating it will cost small business owners Ā£23.7 million just to familiarise themselves with their new legal duties under the banter ban ā€” plus Ā£124,000 a year in ongoing costs for a decade. Total could be as high as Ā£59 million, according to the Government. But, of course, that's a woeful underestimate. The assessment claims it will take business owners just 30 minutes to understand these burdensome new obligations. Oh yeah? To give just one example of what publicans will have wrestle with: they'll have to work out whether to allow transwomen access to the women's lavatories. Unde this new law, female employees could sue for harassment if they find themselves in a loo with a man, but transwomen could also sue for discrimination if they aren't allowed to use the ladies. The legal complexity of that situation, involving a conflict of rights under the Equality Act, is Bridget Phillipson's excuse for delaying issuing EHRC guidance about access to single-sex women's spaces. Yet the Govenment is asking us to believe that publicans will be able to get their heads around this legal minefield in half an hour? The legal and compliance costs for landlords ā€” not to mention the financial risk ā€” could be the final nail in the coffin for the British pub -- and 540 are predicted to close this year. Watch Lord Young below šŸ‘‡
5:31

The Banter Ban is coming to a pub near you. But what does it actually mean? šŸŗ Employers will be required to take ā€œall reasonable stepsā€ to protect their employees from third-party, non-sexual harassment. That includes conversations, remarks and jokes that aren't directed at an employee, but which they overhear and find offensive or upsetting. Bonkers right? How are publicans supposed to shield employees from overhearing the banter of drunk customers? The government has quietly published an 'impact assessment' estimating it will cost small business owners Ā£23.7 million just to familiarise themselves with their new legal duties under the banter ban ā€” plus Ā£124,000 a year in ongoing costs for a decade. Total could be as high as Ā£59 million, according to the Government. But, of course, that's a woeful underestimate. The assessment claims it will take business owners just 30 minutes to understand these burdensome new obligations. Oh yeah? To give just one example of what publicans will have wrestle with: they'll have to work out whether to allow transwomen access to the women's lavatories. Unde this new law, female employees could sue for harassment if they find themselves in a loo with a man, but transwomen could also sue for discrimination if they aren't allowed to use the ladies. The legal complexity of that situation, involving a conflict of rights under the Equality Act, is Bridget Phillipson's excuse for delaying issuing EHRC guidance about access to single-sex women's spaces. Yet the Govenment is asking us to believe that publicans will be able to get their heads around this legal minefield in half an hour? The legal and compliance costs for landlords ā€” not to mention the financial risk ā€” could be the final nail in the coffin for the British pub -- and 540 are predicted to close this year. Watch Lord Young below šŸ‘‡

The Free Speech Union

217,452 views ā€¢ 8 months ago

We are now in our 4th special of the 88th. We just passed SB 4 and SB 3 in the Texas House! Senate Bill 4, creates a new state crime for entering Texas illegally. It authorizes Texas law enforcement to arrest and prosecute all people who cross the border illegally. An illegal border crosser can be returned to the port of entry and ordered to return to the country from which they entered. If they fail to do so, they will face even stiffer penalties. Senate Bill 3 appropriates $1.5 billion to continue building the border wall. These funds are in addition to the over $5 billion appropriated in our budget to continue funding Operation Lone Star. The bill also increases law enforcement overtime, pay including extra staffing at the Colony Ridge development in Liberty County. These bills are the strongest stand that any state has taken to protect its citizens and its sovereignty! #txlege #bordersecurity
1:10

We are now in our 4th special of the 88th. We just passed SB 4 and SB 3 in the Texas House! Senate Bill 4, creates a new state crime for entering Texas illegally. It authorizes Texas law enforcement to arrest and prosecute all people who cross the border illegally. An illegal border crosser can be returned to the port of entry and ordered to return to the country from which they entered. If they fail to do so, they will face even stiffer penalties. Senate Bill 3 appropriates $1.5 billion to continue building the border wall. These funds are in addition to the over $5 billion appropriated in our budget to continue funding Operation Lone Star. The bill also increases law enforcement overtime, pay including extra staffing at the Colony Ridge development in Liberty County. These bills are the strongest stand that any state has taken to protect its citizens and its sovereignty! #txlege #bordersecurity

Rep. Carrie Isaac

18,448 views ā€¢ 2 years ago

Heā€™s filming everyone at the market, but the police say thereā€™s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. ā€‹The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. ā€‹The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. ā€‹The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. ā€‹Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. ā€‹In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. ā€‹While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conductā€”or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographerā€™s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. ā€‹If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.
6:03

Heā€™s filming everyone at the market, but the police say thereā€™s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. ā€‹The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. ā€‹The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. ā€‹The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. ā€‹Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. ā€‹In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. ā€‹While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conductā€”or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographerā€™s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. ā€‹If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

āœØļøSereniteeā™”SamāœØļø

42,931 views ā€¢ 4 months ago

House Democrats warning Senate Democrats not to vote for GOP spending bill ā€” as many Senate Dems torn with shutdown looming. Pramila Jayapal warning of a ā€œbacklashā€ for Senate Dems who vote for it. ā€œThey should refuse to allow this bill to pass in the Senate,ā€ she told me. If they donā€™t? ā€œI think there's going to be huge backlash from across the country, and I think all of them will have to deal with the consequences of that,ā€ Jayapal said. AOC: ā€œThe Republicans have the White House, the Senate and the House. If they want to do this, and if they want to screw over the American people, they can do this with their votes and their party. I do not believe that Democrats should participate.ā€ Sixty votes will be needed in the 53-47 GOP-led Senate to break a filibuster. Shutdown deadline: 11:59p Friday. The House is on recess after passing bill.
1:26

House Democrats warning Senate Democrats not to vote for GOP spending bill ā€” as many Senate Dems torn with shutdown looming. Pramila Jayapal warning of a ā€œbacklashā€ for Senate Dems who vote for it. ā€œThey should refuse to allow this bill to pass in the Senate,ā€ she told me. If they donā€™t? ā€œI think there's going to be huge backlash from across the country, and I think all of them will have to deal with the consequences of that,ā€ Jayapal said. AOC: ā€œThe Republicans have the White House, the Senate and the House. If they want to do this, and if they want to screw over the American people, they can do this with their votes and their party. I do not believe that Democrats should participate.ā€ Sixty votes will be needed in the 53-47 GOP-led Senate to break a filibuster. Shutdown deadline: 11:59p Friday. The House is on recess after passing bill.

Manu Raju

879,977 views ā€¢ 1 year ago

šŸšØBREAKING: A U.S. citizen in, Vancouver, WA, was pulled over by FIVE police cars for legally observing and documenting ICE agentsā€¦ then had to explain the Constitution to the officers detaining himā€¦ And it was all caught on video. In the video, an ICE agent didnā€™t like being watched, called local policeā€¦ Then suddenly, the U.S. citizen, exercising his constitutional rights, was surrounded by FIVE cop cars. And most ridiculous part? The officers who claimed ā€œreasonable suspicionā€ for detaining the U.S. citizen, could not even answer this simple questionā€¦ Is it legal to observe and record law enforcement? After refusing to answer, and arguing about the First Amendment for several minutes, the officer finally admittedā€¦ Yes. It is legal to observe and record law enforcement. So, if itā€™s a legally protected activityā€¦ then why was this U.S. citizen detained? Federal courts, across the country, have repeatedly recognized that the First Amendment protects the right to record and observe government officialsā€¦ including law enforcement performing their duties in publicā€¦ as long as you arenā€™t interfering with them. That means, local police, and ICE agents, donā€™t get to decide when that right appliesā€¦ They donā€™t get to ignore the Constitution because theyā€™re uncomfortable with public oversight. But this isnā€™t the only incident. Across America, weā€™re watching local law enforcement work alongside ICE, while ordinary citizens, journalists, and legal observers are being questioned, detained, and intimidated for exercising their constitutional rights. And the fact that a U.S. citizen had to educate the officers, who were detaining HIM, about the Constitutionā€¦ should outrage every single person. Because if the people enforcing the law donā€™t understand the constitutional rights theyā€™re sworn to protectā€¦ That puts every American in danger.
3:10

šŸšØBREAKING: A U.S. citizen in, Vancouver, WA, was pulled over by FIVE police cars for legally observing and documenting ICE agentsā€¦ then had to explain the Constitution to the officers detaining himā€¦ And it was all caught on video. In the video, an ICE agent didnā€™t like being watched, called local policeā€¦ Then suddenly, the U.S. citizen, exercising his constitutional rights, was surrounded by FIVE cop cars. And most ridiculous part? The officers who claimed ā€œreasonable suspicionā€ for detaining the U.S. citizen, could not even answer this simple questionā€¦ Is it legal to observe and record law enforcement? After refusing to answer, and arguing about the First Amendment for several minutes, the officer finally admittedā€¦ Yes. It is legal to observe and record law enforcement. So, if itā€™s a legally protected activityā€¦ then why was this U.S. citizen detained? Federal courts, across the country, have repeatedly recognized that the First Amendment protects the right to record and observe government officialsā€¦ including law enforcement performing their duties in publicā€¦ as long as you arenā€™t interfering with them. That means, local police, and ICE agents, donā€™t get to decide when that right appliesā€¦ They donā€™t get to ignore the Constitution because theyā€™re uncomfortable with public oversight. But this isnā€™t the only incident. Across America, weā€™re watching local law enforcement work alongside ICE, while ordinary citizens, journalists, and legal observers are being questioned, detained, and intimidated for exercising their constitutional rights. And the fact that a U.S. citizen had to educate the officers, who were detaining HIM, about the Constitutionā€¦ should outrage every single person. Because if the people enforcing the law donā€™t understand the constitutional rights theyā€™re sworn to protectā€¦ That puts every American in danger.

Jesus Freakin Congress

103,571 views ā€¢ 3 months ago