[littlestymaar]

Some right to record in public may be protected by the current jurisprudence invoking the first amendment, but the first amendment itself obviously doesn't say anything about the right to record in public:

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[delichon]

It's a bank shot. SCOTUS has recognized that newsgathering gets some first amendment protection because "without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated" (Branzburg v Hayes).

[littlestymaar]

One could argue that having a contractor of US intelligence service (Google) collecting data on every citizens all the time isn't exactly “news gathering” and ought to be prevented if one wanted to abid to the spirit of the Constitution.

[hackingonempty]

Recording is writing, which is speech, which is protected.

[littlestymaar]

“Performance is speech, murder is performance, hence murder is protected”

Fortunately it doesn't work like that.

Also not every speech is protected, you aren't allowed to leak classified info even though doing that is purely speech.