Which is a lie, because in public, nobody has a right or expectation of privacy.
Least of all public officials like police.
You can see a new video below, Warden talking about the agony of having been first assaulted and then attacked with complaint censorship on his news channel and three false complaints aimed at censoring his citizen journalism.
It’s his only way to monetize important public interest news-gathering activities.
It’s where he tells the world about official abuse.
Complaint censorship happens with false or improper complaints submitted with intent to damage a citizen journalist or news outlet’s online publishing access or tools.
In fact, they miserably fail the two prong test established in Katz vs. US which is the seminal Supreme Court case which was nominally about the 4th Amendment and when a police officer must use a warrant to discover or search private information vs. what is already in public and anyone can see:
If (1) the individual “has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy“, and (2) society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable, then there is a right of privacy in the given circumstance.
The answer is clearly no to this test for public officials, who are performing their official duties in public.
Same goes for security guards in public too.
But often, complaint censorship arises when police performing their duties in public are recorded and videos published, or persons convicted of crimes caught on those videos or those who’re the subject of unflattering news coverage they’d rather disappear from the web in an effort to erase history.
In fact, they are some of the very same officials who assaulted PINAC Correspondent David Warden outside of a Federal building in Houston this week.
“One thing that bothers me more than anything else,” said Warden who is a military veteran, “is public servants who think they should not be held accountable to us for their actions.”
Indeed, complaint censorship activists are attacking PINAC News’ YouTube account t00, removing a video depicting protesters attacked by white supremacists shouting hate speech, which was deleted for… hate speech by the attackers.
A PINAC correspondent’s account was flagged in Arizona just last week, by the man convicted of assault for his actions in that video.
David Warden, also recently received complaints from an unknown YouTube viewers, on three videos on hisYouTube channel, which resulted in the removal of one video and is presently attempting to remove two others.
“I’ve had three removed in one week,” said Warden. “Last year I only had one removed.”
The first complaint he received about videos on his channel stemmed from one where he recorded Paragon security guards who approached him in a golf cart. Paragon is a private security company that’s employed by the government to provide gate security for the FBI.
In that video, when security guards approached him; he took some video footage of them, and they left.
“That video only lasted for about five or six minutes. It was no big deal.”
Even though photography is not a crime, that video was removed by YouTube.
Warden said that video is gone for good.
So we’re unable to show it.
Warden’s Police Accountability Movie Project
The second complaint stemmed from an interaction with Harris County constables from Precinct 1 when Warden video-recorded Sgt. Barrientos after they approached him while he was recording footage for his future documentary Blue Privilege.
In it, Warden documents things like police cars illegally parked in no parking zones.
Warden had just walked out of court, after being exonerated from charges stemming from recording a Shell Oil refineryduring another First Amendment audit, when he began gathering footage for his upcoming documentary outside of Harris County Precinct 1 and encountered the constables.
They approached and the typical dialogue ensued about why he was there and what he’s doing.
Even though photography is not a crime, they treated Warden like a criminal for doing it.
The YouTube complaint requested only the time stamp during which Sgt. Barrientos appeared in the video be removed, and not the entire video.
We can only guess who may have complained to YouTube about Barrientos’ cameo appearance in Warden’s footage.
Warden responded to the complaint and explained he wasn’t critical of Barrientos and even told us she did a pretty good job that day.
The outcome of that video remains to be seen.
The Very Private Port Security
The third complaint was launched on March 29th about a video in which Warden conducted a First Amendment audit of Port Police in Houston, Texas.
The portion of the video complained about in that video was the portion that showed a Port Security security guard who called police on Warden for recording, because he apparently was not aware that photography is not an actual crime.
The security guard called police and they took over and investigated a man with a camera, but most of our readers will find the beginning in that especially comical.
As of now, the video remains active on his YouTube channel.
While we can’t be sure of the complainant on all of Warden’s videos, time stamps requested to be removed from two videos suggests we can make logical assumptions
Two specific public officials requested to be removed from the reports.
“Public servants shouldn’t mind being recorded during the course of their duties, especially if they’re in public. That’s ridiculous,” says Warden in exasperation with the ordeal, “If you confront a videographer, you have to expect you’re going to appear in the video.”
“I have every right to record that encounter and to show that video to others so they can see how public employees are performing their duties. “
In the past, when conducting First Amendment rights audits, Warden has had his fair share of public servants who express dismay about being recorded.
And they go to great lengths to stifle his constitutionally protected free speech, and have even assaulted him, as a Houston-based Federal Court Security Agent did in a video he recently exposed to the public.
In that video, several Federal Court Security Agents approached him.
But only Federal Agent Calderon identified himself.
And while Calderon was belligerent towards Warden and assaulted him, trying to snatch the citizen journalist’s camera, we at least thank him complying with the law when asked to identify himself.
We can’t say so for the worst offender in that video.
Another Federal Court Security Agent – ironically a dead ringer for Maricopa Arizona’s controversial Sheriff Joe Arpaio – refused to identify and has still not been ID’d, even after promising to do so.
He shoved Warden into the street and train tracks from a public side-walk, in front of the federal building.
Warden asked the belligerent Sheriff Joe look-alike for his name and badge number.
“No, I’m not going to give you shit,” the federal courthouse guard replied outside the courthouse.
He went on to curse at him and called his News Now Houston correspondents ‘idiots’ and threatened them with arrest saying, “you’re about to go to jail for being a dumb ass.”
If it wasn’t such a serious issue, it’d be funny to watch the First Amendment clinic David Warden put on outside of the building.
Now, not only has Warden been censored by YouTube after officials presumably became disgruntled after they appeared in his video while he conducted First Amendment audits, but he was also the subject of abuse by authorities who have arrested him as well as threatened him with arrest.
Below are the videos we mentioned above as well as his response to being the subject of complaint censorship.
David Warden requested a call for action and urges the public to contact Constable Alan Rosen at 713-755-5200 to express their concerns about attempting to criminalize his lawful actions of citizen journalists and petition for redress of those grievances.