If you created an app that essentially doxed police and schemed ways to circumvent their ability to enforce the law, I'd hope you would get in trouble for that, especially if it compromised the safety of those you care about, don't you agree?
What word games is he playing? You're making a factual claim about the legality of something, and you're being directly queried on the veracity of that claim.
Given that it's legal (in the US) to film/livestream cops so long as they are not obstructed in the commission of their duties, and in the wider context of the First Amendment, I find it relatively hard to believe that merely reporting cop sightings is illegal. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/02/yes-you-have-right-fil...
It is widely agreed that transparency and accountability in policing makes for better policing.
I'd address your argument but it's based on false pretenses. police scanners are legal in all states and under federal law, using one while committing a crime leads to additional penalties and 5 states restrict their use while driving for safety purposes, much like cell phones.
>police scanners are legal to own and listen to under U.S. federal law. However, five states restrict mobile use while driving and ten more add penalties if a scanner is used while committing a crime.
You're confidently asserting things that are legally unsupported, while accusing everyone else of being dumb. Rein it in, champ.
Using police scanners to listen to unencrypted radio chatter is legal in all states.
In minority of states, using police scanners is not legal while driving, and in all states it is not legal to use police scanners to aid in the commission of a crime. This is not that different from the laws that apply to, say, cellphones. You generally can't use those to commit crimes or while driving either. And yet, saying that 'cellphones are illegal' is obviously not an accurate representation of reality.
The bottom line here is that it is deeply unlikely that a court would find ICEBlock illegal. You may very well dislike that outcome, but it rather seems like your problem is with the Bill of Rights. In which case I can only recommend moving to a country without one - there are sadly very many.
aiding and abetting is already a crime, and a very different one. we already have case law that warning people about the presence of police does not amount to aiding and abetting from people flashing their lights to warn others about a speed trap. even if the flasher and/or flashee are breaking the law, as long as they don't physically interfere with the police its within the realm of free speech even though it could potentially hinder them. (https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/headlight-flashing/#...).
Flashlights weren't created with the intent to aid and abet criminal behavior. ICEBlock was. If it's being used primarily for that purpose, there's a strong case to be made that it should be shut down, especially if it's found to create significant challenges for law enforcement, either leading to their harm, or enabling criminals to evade or escape justified enforcement.
Stepping back from the legal / Constitutional considerations, this just seems like common sense: person commits crime, others make app to help criminals escape, therefore the app itself is aiding and abetting.
I think really, its proponents are using "free speech" as a roundabout way of saying they support these criminals. I really wish they'd just be honest instead.
This entire article is subject to the whims and misinterpretations from Trump's staunchest opponents who gleefully lie and twist almost everything he and his administration does — everyone should take this with a giant grain of salt.
