reddit-MT

reddit-MT t1_j9utzxw wrote

It's usually more of a question of breaking some other law, not livestreaming specific. Like interfering with a police officer, resisting arrest or wiretap statues. So the "mystery" isn't about the existence of a livestreaming specific statue, but if other statues apply.

Qualified immunity may be invoked if it was not "clearly established" that livestreaming was legal at the time of the incident and the police should reasonably have known about it. Going forward, it's now established in the 4th circuit that livestreaming is legal, so long as the suspect doesn't violate another law in the course of livestreaming, like interfering with a police officer.

Other jurisdictions have laws that say, to paraphrase, that it's legal to record the police making an arrest but you have to maintain a certain distance and not interfere.

2

reddit-MT t1_iu0006u wrote

As much as China wants to take Taiwan, it's hard to believe that they wouldn't rather have Taiwan with the chip industry intact. I just see the advanced chip industry as being more strategically important than the island. Right now, they can plausibly blockade the island where they can't blockade Texas. If the diminished Taiwanese semiconductor narrative were correct, they would much rather a new chip fab be opened in an adjacent country they have influence over, than in the US. If anything, it's a silver lining. A consolation prize for losing influence of the semiconductor industry versus a goal or a win.

1