zlacker

> If you are filming a public space with no expectation of privacy the government has no constitutional authority to restrict you if you are retaining the data private and never sharing it.

This a shitty argument from a time where mass surveillance wasn't possible. If you have "no expectation of privacy in public spaces" than Governments could force you to wear an ankle monitor and body camera at all times since you have "no expectation of privacy".

>>IlikeK+(OP)
You are mixing up the duties and rights a government has vs. the duties and rights citizens have. The one area I might start to agree is corporate personhood and giving corporations the same rights as a private citizen in this regard because their interests are very different from a private citizens. The whole point of the constitution is largely what the government can't do to its citizens. The goal is to protect citizens FROM its government by carving out our rights. These of course apply broadly, but I can't, for example, as a private citizen really violate your 4A rights very easily.

>>bitexp+Wa
> You are mixing up the duties and rights a government has vs. the duties and rights the governments have.

Can you correct that typo? I've been thinking about what you mean for a while and I can't figure it out.

edit: Thank you

>>IlikeK+(OP)
No, it's a great right.

You (personally) can't stop me from photographing you in public, Ms. Steisand.

And Freedom of Speech has no sensible connection to being forced to carry objects. Your argument also assumes no one ever goes into private houses, where 1A doesn't apply.