Apologies. I was thinking of their other indictments, the ones which were dismissed.

Don't agree with what they did or were trying to do. These people have a history of lying and deceptively editing videos to try and frame people.

That said, I'm not sure the court in this slaughterhouse case got the decision right. It's one thing to allow filming in public locations. There's nothing you can do to stop that. When we get onto private property, it seems to me like it's within a state's police powers to extend this protection to its citizens.

Reminds me of how states allow businesses to ban firearms as long as they have it clearly posted on all entrances to the building. I don't see why the same shouldn't be allowed for filming, from a constitutional standpoint.

I'm not seeing a lot of reason to agree with the court's ruling. Plus, filming isn't really expression or speech. It's a record of the actions of others. At best, the right to film falls under a 5th or 14th amendment due process protection, depending on your judicial philosophy. Calling the right to film a first amendment right is, to me, based in murky water.