Oklahoma Governer Signs Bill into Law

[Hodrod]

Oklahoma governor signs bill into law protecting motorists who unintentionally run over rioters from being prosecuted or sued.
Stitt signed the bill, which also stiffens penalties for protesters who block public roadways, on Wednesday. But the most controversial provision was one that gives motorists immunity from prosecution for unintentionally striking and killing or injuring rioters who block roads and threaten them.
“We are sending a message today in Oklahoma that rioters who threaten law-abiding citizens will not be tolerated,” Stitt said. “I remain unequivocally committed to protecting every Oklahoman’s First Amendment right to peacefully protest, as well as their right to feel safe in their community.”

 

[Hodrod]

 

[trekrok]

This bill gives some fodder to media given the way it sounds, but I think it's a good idea. Just saw footage from Minneapolis with a guy in a semi with a guy on his hood and one reaching in his side window. There were examples here in OK last summer that were similar.

They spin it like people will be driving down the sidewalk mowing down protestors. But when I think about someone inadvertently facing a mob like we saw, I think it's good for everyone involved to know this bill exists.

 

[Aku]

Necessary addition to the statutes. Stitt also signed a new law making it a misdemeanor if you video and publish personal identifiers on law enforcement and public officials.
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22 ENR/hB/HB1643 ENR.PDF

 

[Rez Exelon]

Necessary addition to the statutes. Stitt also signed a new law making it a misdemeanor if you video and publish personal identifiers on law enforcement and public officials.
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2021-22 ENR/hB/HB1643 ENR.PDF

Yeah, because that's not designed specifically to get people to not record police. For instance, look here in the section that defines personally identifiable information that is illegal to publish:

4. "Personally identifiable information" means information which can identify an individual including, but not limited to, name, birth date, place of birth, mother's maiden name, biometric records, Social Security number, official state-or government-issued driver license or identification number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number or any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial or employment information;​

There's a couple questions I instantly have:
1. Name - so if an officer is being record and he just casually drops something like "i'm officer John Smith" then a recording would then be illegal to publish?
2. Biometric records - this could be the same as likeness since facial recognition is so widely used for biometrics right now. (sidebar, but never ever give that away --- it's the absolute worst thing you could do).
3. State-or-goverment-issues ... identification number --- what, like a badge number?
4. Any other information linked to an individual such as ...employment information - like if an individual was noted as being with TPD rather than OKCPD for instance?

Even if one was going to argue intent, this bill seems designed to allow what I call "harassment power". Meaning that someone could be arrested first, and released later after getting the person a record + legal fees, etc. It's 100% designed to have a chilling effect.

A. Whoever, with the intent to threaten, intimidate or harass, or facilitate another to threaten, intimidate or harass, uses an electronic communication device to knowingly publish, postor otherwise make publicly available personally identifiable information of a peace officer or public official, and as a result places that peace officer or public official in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury​

Everything comes down to intent up there (emphasis added by me) because it's a harassment power. It's a "see all those people with phones out, go grab them" power. It's setting a stage for LEO's to be able to sweep stuff under the rug. Much like how there was a case out of New York where the cops took a guy in, then got caught trying to decide what charges to make up for him. And in the meantime they did a warrant-less search and destroy mission on his memory cards.

 

[chuter]

Yeah, because that's not designed specifically to get people to not record police. For instance, look here in the section that defines personally identifiable information that is illegal to publish:

4. "Personally identifiable information" means information which can identify an individual including, but not limited to, name, birth date, place of birth, mother's maiden name, biometric records, Social Security number, official state-or government-issued driver license or identification number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number or any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial or employment information;​

There's a couple questions I instantly have:
1. Name - so if an officer is being record and he just casually drops something like "i'm officer John Smith" then a recording would then be illegal to publish?
2. Biometric records - this could be the same as likeness since facial recognition is so widely used for biometrics right now. (sidebar, but never ever give that away --- it's the absolute worst thing you could do).
3. State-or-goverment-issues ... identification number --- what, like a badge number?
4. Any other information linked to an individual such as ...employment information - like if an individual was noted as being with TPD rather than OKCPD for instance?

Even if one was going to argue intent, this bill seems designed to allow what I call "harassment power". Meaning that someone could be arrested first, and released later after getting the person a record + legal fees, etc. It's 100% designed to have a chilling effect.

A. Whoever, with the intent to threaten, intimidate or harass, or facilitate another to threaten, intimidate or harass, uses an electronic communication device to knowingly publish, postor otherwise make publicly available personally identifiable information of a peace officer or public official, and as a result places that peace officer or public official in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury​

Everything comes down to intent up there (emphasis added by me) because it's a harassment power. It's a "see all those people with phones out, go grab them" power. It's setting a stage for LEO's to be able to sweep stuff under the rug. Much like how there was a case out of New York where the cops took a guy in, then got caught trying to decide what charges to make up for him. And in the meantime they did a warrant-less search and destroy mission on his memory cards.

Without studying the law or being a lawyer; it makes it illegal to publish, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be used in court.
A good side effect might be that videos made by bystanders won't make it to the media to be twisted and misinterpreted before the facts are known.

 

[Retired]

Will never hold up to higher level scrutiny. 1st

 

[Rez Exelon]

Without studying the law or being a lawyer; it makes it illegal to publish, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be used in court.
A good side effect might be that videos made by bystanders won't make it to the media to be twisted and misinterpreted before the facts are known.

Yeah, but I don't think it's about that at all....it's about making it so that cops can claim it while infringing on rights to create the chilling effect. Google how they are starting to play Disney songs during stops in places so that Youtube's algorithms will take the videos down if/when published. What is up with that. I mean, if there's nothing to hide there's nothing to fear right? But it sure seems like there's an awful lot of people trying to get stuff hidden to me. That's a sure sign of a force not on the side of citizens.

 

[wawazat]

I dont trust anyone or anything that is put off by transparency. I dont care if its my employer, my friends, my family, a political party, or a law enforcement agency. Maybe it is the good ol SE Oklahoma upbringing, but I don't trust anything that relies on secrecy to be sold.

 

[mr ed]

I don't think you understand. It's about publishing personal information. Commonly called Doxing.