Moves against First Amendment

The California Legislature is at it again, trying to curb your First Amendment rights.

Specifically, a bill in the Legislature would prohibit a public agency from disclosing a recording of a peace officer killed in the line of duty if the officer’s immediate family objects.

As ghoulish as it may sound to call for the release of such a recording, slayings of peace officers – and slayings by peace officers – are both of high public interest in these days of tension in the streets and finger-pointing as shootings become alarmingly frequent.

Technology makes the release of such information possible; public interest makes it necessary under the First Amendment.

It’s no stretch of the imagination to expect grieving family members to quash the release of such a recording if they have a right to do so. Assembly Bill 2611 by Assemblyman Evan Low, DSan Jose, would allow emotion to trump best public policy in deciding what the public has access to and what it doesn’t.

This bill sailed through the Senate Public Safety Committee on a 6-1 vote and could wind up before the full Senate as early as Thursday.

Two months ago we wrote about two other bills by two Democratic Assembly members that would infringe on the public’s First Amendment rights. One was killed but the other – Assembly Bill 1671 by Jimmy Gomez, DLos Angeles, is expected to go before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Aug. 8.

It is aimed at criminalizing the distribution of recordings made illegally.

The crime is in the recording. Criminalizing the act of distribution is like shooting the messenger because you don’t like the message, which has a most chilling effect on future messengers.

We suggest the members of the Legislature’s so-called progressive party quit trying to fight the digitization of America and recognize that we live in an age when everybody wants to know everything, see it for themselves and express an immediate opinion.

Technology makes it possible. Regressive legislation can’t close those floodgates, and it often crosses constitutional lines when it tries to.