More on this:

* Courts currently ruled that it is constitutional to film the police, despite what these rules say:

http://technorati.com/technology/article/federal-courts-rule-it-is-not/

And more can be done to research.  Here is another video clip going into this issue:

They asked one official, when you could of asked a dozen lawyers for the reasoning behind it.  Like a ton of other articles did that wern't so sensationalistic in it's wording?

Why would they drop a tent over protestors filming people being arrested?

Probably because they were sick of police officers just doing their jobs often getting a bad wrap for such films are often cut and posted for slanderous reasons?

And No.  I do have a problem with the NDAA.

I just tend to be a little more even keeled and logical with a lot of this stuff, because I do more then just pay attention to the first youtube video I see on this stuff doing my best to get all sides of every story before I form an opinion.

I'm not particularly for this law however It's not what people are exagerrating it to be however and does have valid reasons to exist... and does have a clause that would let people out of trouble who are particularly being abused by the law.

Oh, and as for electing any republican.  As it stands if I was forced to vote for a candidate, I'd vote for Obama, because all the frontrunning Presidential candiates suck. 

Additionally, your court idea it should be noted doesn't really hold up.

By that logic Obamacare would be illegal.

Other courts have ruled it illegal to tape the police.

Which you'd of known if you'd read more then one article on the matter. Many cases on it have been outright dismissed.

I would say watching a police officer beating an old lady for no reason would give good cause to tape them.

Since you know.  They would be doing just that... and be in the middle of it.

A lawyer would be able to argue that pretty easy.

Land of the free

Thankfully things aren't like that everywhere

Here in Norway, you are allowed to tape anyone you want to but it is illegal to share or show the images with/to anyone else, it then becomes exposure. We encounter this all the time at work (I work as a bouncer and security guard), it can be frustrating when people are filming you handcuffing someone or simply controlling someone on the ground and they scream insults and generally aggravate the situation but we have no law to prevent them from this. These tapes are often out of context or completely lacking backstory at all, people love to portray others are mean or abusive, doubly so when they're wearing a uniform of any kind.

This whole thing has taken off since everyone started buying phones with cameras, especially since the cameraphones nowadays take crisp and clear images and it appears hopeless to ensure that no one shows their footage to anyone but I still somewhat defend peoples right to film/photograph certain events, it could turn out to be evidence one way or the other. I actually have co-workers who have gotten off the hook after a video of the situation surfaced.

Yeah, I think that's how an ideal law would work rather then one that has some level of "grey area".  Make it legal to tape anyone HOWEVER any sharing of it outside of legal issues should be illegal.

Ok Kasz You are always against rights and anything that has to do with helping anyone out. So you use gangs to prove your point about why the big bad guys are not allowed to video tape. We pay for them and they should have no fear or laws if they have nothing to hide. I see it as keeping an EYE On our public Employee's. They tape people in many postions but the positions that should have the most checks and balances shouldn't be taped?  Clearly this law you are talking about is being abused. They are there to serve the people and it seems that lately they are there to abuse and beat the sh-t out of people for no reason other then having a power trip. This goes back to if they have nothing to fear, then they should have no issue with any of this. SH-t they should give a happy wave and show that they give a sh-t about there people. Maybe come up and actually see if people need help every once and a while. However it seems lately they are using the,  you are guilty until proven innocent.

  I personallly think your politics are ridiculous and also seem to put things together that never hold value. I seen once that you tried to say that corporations where people under the first amendment and it actually has to do with the 14th amendment and a interpratation of a court justice on his death bed. The actual case  got ruled against, saying, corporations are not people. It got ruled in favor under Bush's appointed justices that seem to lack morality. Having dinner and meeting up with lobbyist before the case but hey thats ok with this new corporatocracy.  Funny that people as your self get behind these rulings. Serving the people seems to be on the back burner for some. Some need to take some moral theorapy.

There should be no ticket or any kind of violations for taping cops in the streets, in your home or anywhere that they could be harm to you or your family. There are so many dirty cops that I think having this makes it easier of them to operate. If they are taping in court rooms or lawyer or whatever, now that is totally different but yet you tried to make it seem ok because you tie gang bangers and regular people together. They tape us all the time. Any where in public there are camera's and if the police have a problem with this, then so should we. Stop being so biased.  

Actually you can't audio tape regular people in Illnois without there consent.  Making it illegal to tape your employees without their consent.  (also making the extreme outrage even somewhat more ridiculious.)  I mean, haven't you ever wondered why almost all survelience cameras are silent now even though you can buy a 20 dollar phone with an audio recording device?

So your entire premise is flawed. 

http://www.rcfp.org/can-we-tape/illinois

Videotaping others is widely considered legal. (just like the police)  However having Audio in that taping is illegal.  In places like Illnois it's illegal against EVERYONE knows while in places like Ohio it's only illegal if neither party in the conversation is bugged.

Ever wonder why whenever you called customer service it'd say "We are taping this for future quality control analysisis."

As for the laws being abused?  Really depends on if the court cases hold up yeah and the crimes they get, yeah?

Additionally, if you read the supreme courts ruling.  You'll see that corporate personhood was based on the first ammendment in the Citizens United case.

The "14th ammendment" corporate pershonhood clause was completely unrelated thing. 

The main thrust of the ruling was

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens,(IE cCorporations) for simply engaging in political speech."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Opinion_of_the_Court

My opinions may seem ridiculious to you, but i'd argue that's likely due more to your faulty premises brought on by lack of reaserch on the situations.  I know that comes off as arrogant, and I don't mean it to, but I really can't think of another way to say it.

I tend to be a fairly even keeled non-extremist who feels passionitly about my nonextremism, and hence whill argue with people who often go off into crazy conspiracy theory land and invent all kinds of arguements that don't exist like "The Supreme court ruled coprorations are people!"   When in reality what the supreme court ruled and what we know has "corporate personhood) is that assembling in a group and working together does not invalidate peoples rights.  You can not like the decision, but it's the 100% logical one.

Afterall, it's not like I'm for coprorate money in elections, I just recognize it's the logical ruling if "Freedom of Speech" is one of our core unbreakable rights.  There is no way around it.  People are unwilling to face the facts but 99% of all positive decisions have negative aspects.

I'm not a particular fan of this law and would perfer something like what mummelman mentioned, but at the same time, the number of people who are taking the whole thing out of context are ridiculious.

We're brought up in a political culture where EVERYONE's political ideology professes to be the best at EVERY single aspect or problem.

Sorry, but I don't buy into that.  I'm the kind of guy who if I really wanted to, construct giant factual arguements against myself on issues.