Read the whole commentary then the ruling.
The court continued that while exercise of these rights do come with limits in certain circumstances, an arrest on the Boston Common, "the oldest city park in the United States and the apotheosis of a public forum," is not one of them.
Next up is the precedence which sets those limits.
This is the key item in the ruling that allowed it to beat the wiretapping laws:
the law requires a secret recording and the officers admitted that Glik
had used his cell phone openly and in plain view to obtain the
video and audio recording.
So don't go running spy cams on cops, you WILL lose.
Along with:
The filming of government officials engaged in their
duties in a public place, including police officers performing
their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles.
Gathering information about government officials in a form that can
readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment
interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of
governmental affairs."
Finally,
It was never a violation of MA wiretapping laws due to the fact that he never "secretly" recorded the police. He was out in the open in clear view in a public space recording the arrest. And the police openly acknowledged he was taking pictures/recording them.
This wasn't "striking down" law, it was wrongful arrest.
The cop didn't know the law, the lawyer did.
Threaded Mode