On Mar 10, 11:50 am, Chris  wrote:

>why would you not just prosecute the camera(phone)
>operators as an accessory?

That's what I think too. There are already laws concerning what a
private citizen can and can't do when they witness another person
committing a crime. In fact, ISTR France having a Good Samaritan law
of some description, because there was a discussion over whether the
reporters who neglected to assist Princess Diana after the car crash
would be charged (I can't remember the outcome). Personally, I'd be in
favour of stronger laws requiring someone who witnesses a violent
crime, or some of the more serious types of property offences, taking
some action to provide aid (such as calling the police as one option).
Providing medical aid to an assault victim may not always be feasible,
and first aid courses teach that the first thing you do is check to
see that there are no further hazards that you'll be hurt by when
trying to provide aid.

> also, what defines "filming violence?"   what if
"Pierre" and "Jean
> Paul" are filming their savate practice so they can review their
> performance to improve?

Generally speaking, martial arts practice between two or more willing
participants is not a crime and would not constitute "assault" or
"violence". Putting your hand on someone's shoulder, or kissing them
on the cheek, could legally be common assault without the recipient's
consent. Conversely, martial arts practice with another person with
their consent is not assault. Consent doesn't cover everything -- for
instance, only a registered medical professional can perform surgery
on someone unless there isn't time to arrange this, and you can't
consent to being killed except under certain conditions such as
terminal illness -- but it covers all but the most serious forms of
physical injury (whether sports like boxing should be permitted is
another issue). But in any case, continuing with an arm bar for long
after the person taps out might become assault, as might inflicting an
intentional injury that goes beyond the scope of the consent (such as
punching or kicking someone during judo practice).

> what if a fan is filming a soccer game, and a riot breaks out?
>
> how does this effect security camera footage?

Both good examples. It should be noted that security guards are
private citizens with no special government privileges. The only
privileges they've been given pertain to the owner of private property
issuing them the right to withdraw someone's invitation to remain on
that property or to conduct any activities (e.g. business) there. It
might be awfully expensive for security guards to have to be trained
as professional journalists.

> the overbroadness of the law seems to me to be a case of certain gov't
> officials seeing an opening they can use to write a new law that will
> have much wider ranging effects than those who want the original
> activity stopped anticipated.

Yes, and in this way it's reminiscent of the "Patriot Act" in the US.

There could be stronger penalties for filming an act of violence (over
and above those for acting negligently or as an accessory when
witnessing a crime) if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that
criminal intent was involved, which would include acting as an
accessory or/and distributing footage for an undesirable purpose.
Also, it could be deemed that a recording of an act of violence
becomes the intellectual property of the victim, so recipients who
view the footage unlawfully are violating the victim's intellectual
property rights. Penalties could be more severe than for IP where the
owner's interest is only financial.

There's absolutely no need to make a law against filming acts of
violence, when acting inappropriately upon witnessing a crime is a
separate offence that can be (and mostly is already) covered by other
laws.

Matthew
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32