In Louisiana it's illegal to post (on social media) videos of criminal activity, "for publicity."

[pnwmom]

How can it be against the law to publicize wrongdoing when it's observed? Would this prevent a citizen from videotaping and posting a police officer's criminal activity?

Why doesn't Freedom of Speech apply here?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/mom-arrested-posting-video-students-fighting-social-media/story?id=61198313

The mother of a Louisiana high school student has been arrested after she posted video of two students fighting on social media.

Maegan Adkins-Barras, 32, allegedly admitted to police that she uploaded the video of the fight, which happened at Acadiana High School in Lafayette, Louisiana, on Tuesday, after finding it on her son's phone. The video was then "shared repeatedly," according to the Scott Police Department.

During the fight, one of the students threw a punch that caused the other to fall and strike his head on one of the concrete benches in the area, police said. He was then taken to a nearby medical facility for treatment. He has since been released, Lafayette ABC affiliate KATC reported.

The Broussard resident was charged with unlawful posting of criminal activity for notoriety and publicity, police said. She was being held at the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center and bail had not been set as of Wednesday afternoon.

https://katc.com/news/around-acadiana/lafayette-parish/2019/02/21/student-recovering-after-acadiana-high-fight/

The Scott Police Department issued the following statement in a press release about the arrest:

“Parents who receive information concerning criminal activity on school campuses are urged to contact their local police department or school administration. Posting videos and photos of illegal activity on social media is against the law in the State of Louisiana. Violators of the law could be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.”

ON EDIT:

Onenote just cited the law below in post #4 below, which doesn't apply in her case -- she wasn't involved in the criminal activity. And then I found this:

https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/news/crime_police/article_cf7f8b78-353c-11e9-a997-67c642358063.html

A Broussard mom’s civil rights may have been violated Wednesday when police arrested her for posting a video to social media that shows a fight between two high school students.

Maegan Adkins-Barras, 32, spent the night in jail for unlawful posting of criminal activity for notoriety and publicity after she posted a fight her son captured on video at Acadiana High School in Lafayette.

But the law she allegedly broke appears to apply only to "a person who is either a principal or accessory to a crime."

Franz Borghardt, a criminal defense attorney who has taught criminal litigation at the LSU Law School, said he had never even heard of the law until Adkins-Barras was arrested.

[onenote]

1. The law is much more narrow - she shouldn't have been charged

A. It shall be unlawful for a person who is either a principal or accessory to a crime to obtain an image of the commission of the crime using any camera, videotape, photo-optical, photo-electric, or any other image recording device and to transfer that image obtained during the commission of the crime by the use of a computer online service, Internet service, or any other means of electronic communication, including but not limited to a local bulletin board service, Internet chat room, electronic mail, or online messaging service for the purpose of gaining notoriety, publicity, or the attention of the public.


Whether restricting the perpetrator of a criminal act from posting a video of it for publicity/notoriety would pass constitutional muster is an interesting question. But since the mom wasn't either a principal or accessory to the fight, the police royally screwed up in arresting and jailing her (she's been released).

[Mr. Quackers]

2. Since when would that matter to police.

Especially in a place like Louisiana.

[pnwmom]

5. Thanks, onenote! n/t

[SWBTATTReg]

3. Interesting...so what if a traffic cam captures a police chase and/or shootout, etc. (a crime) ...

and it's on camera for the public to view? Trying to figure this out but is confusing as heck.

[onenote]

4. Again, the law as written only applies to videos posted by principals or accessories to the crime

The police fucked up big time.

[pnwmom]

6. So they don't want criminals to benefit from their crimes, which makes sense. n/t

[Dr. Strange]

8. Yeah, the law does make sense.

I don't know how anyone thinks it should apply to this mom. That's just nuts.

[onenote]

11. Unclear whether it would pass constitutional muster even as applied to a criminal

It is only intended to apply to principals/accessories to a crime.

But what exactly does that mean? Does it only apply if the activity shown in the video is the basis of a criminal charge and the person posting the video convicted? What is the meaning of for "publicity" or "notoriety" -- very vague terms for a restraint on speech.

Son of Sam laws were initially struck down and they didn't actually directly criminalize speech -- just made the speaker give up any money they received. Later versions of Son of Sam laws don't even go that far -- they typically just require notice to the victims of the criminal activity and an extension of their right to sue for damages.

This law seems pretty dubious if there was an attempt to apply it as written. In the case of the mom charged with violating it, there is no need to address the constitutional issue since she's not a target of the law as it is written.

[pnwmom]

7. I just added this to the OP, along with another article. Thanks again!

[Smackdown2019]

9. Judge

All her lawyer has to do is plead NOT guilty and declare before the judge the law is unconstitutional. Judge can either proceed with the case or declare it unconstitutional.

[onenote]

10. See posts 1 and 3.

No need for a court to address any constitutional issue.

[Smackdown2019]

14. Beg to differ

There is a need for a law to be removed due to the unconstitutional means and her judge can do so since they are using it against her in her Constitutional right of speech.

[onenote]

15. Whether the law is unconstitutional is a different question

than whether a court has to reach that issue to decide whether it applies to the mom.

The courts could be asked to strike down the law as unconstitutional on its face or as applied But courts generally follow the principle that constitutional questions will not be reached if a case can be resolved on statutory interpretation grounds-- which is clearly the situation here.

[petronius]

12. Seems a bit of a counter-productive law - don't we want dumbasses to post video of their crimes?

[pnwmom]

13. LOL. Good point! n/t