Last month, a federal judge upheld a man’s conviction for unauthorizedly recording a video at a Littleton office of the U.S. Social Security Administration, despite his claims that he was trying to “test the First Amendment “.

Christopher J. Cordova was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of failing to obey official signs and illegally photographing federal property. He was sentenced to 15 days in jail, two years of probation and a $3,000 fine.

Cordova argued on appeal that his recording was “part of his journalistic expression” and that the regulations prohibiting video recording constituted an inappropriate restriction on free speech.

But in an order dated October 15U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang noted that any restrictions within the Social Security Administration office must only be reasonable. Furthermore, it considered that the registration ban met a legitimate objective.

“Although the defendant asserts that ‘the act of recording is quiet and non-disruptive,’ this general assertion is belied by his conduct in this matter, which did cause a disturbance in the SSA office,” Wang wrote, “distracting the attention of the security guards and requiring the arrival of additional security guards and police officers, not to mention causing a commotion that was likely distracting and could have been distressing for SSA employees and customers. “.

Cordova and a handful of others arrived at the Social Security office on Southpark Lane on August 2, 2022. Cordova used a camera to record in the lobby for approximately three hours. Security personnel later claimed the group was “stating that it was their constitutional right to film inside government buildings.”

Believing that they were “First Amendment Listeners” – those who record in public spaces to test their right to free speech – security personnel told the group they could stay in the lobby but could not record inside the office itself – even, where customers interacted with Social Security staff and disclosed their personal identifying information the signage also warned against videotaping.

Auditors reportedly called law enforcement officers “tyrants” and threatened to sue them. Elderly customers reportedly “reported feeling intimidated and threatened by the auditors,” one officer wrote. Eventually, Cordova walked into the Social Security office and an officer arrested him. The other listeners reportedly “clapped and seemed to have gotten what they wanted,” another officer wrote.

Federal prosecutors charged Cordova, alleging he “believed YouTube fame and money outweighed the privacy rights of Social Security Administration customers.” They also claimed Cordova made $11,000 from her YouTube channel in the months after posting the video of her encounter.

For his part, Cordova explained to Chief Justice of the United States Michael E. Hegarty that he was “trying to create jurisprudence in the State of Colorado” and “put the First Amendment to the test.” He also compared himself to Rosa Parks.

Hegarty found Cordova guilty on both counts.

Hegarty partly rejected Cordova’s argument that the Social Security office, where customers waited to speak to employees, was a “lobby” in which recording was permitted for informational purposes. He noted that it was in this office that the Social Security Administration “conducted its primary activities.”

“It is clear from the regulations, the signage in the SSA entrance, the instructions given by law enforcement, and Mr. Cordova’s own understanding of the law that he was properly informed of the law and that his conduct in filming beyond the interior window “The doors were punishable,” Hegarty wrote in March 2023. “While I respect his right to challenge the law and test his constitutional rights to their extreme limit, He’s wrong in this case.”

Wang, the district judge, rejected all of Cordova’s arguments on appeal. She disagrees that the recording ban is too broad, because it only applies to spaces occupied by federal agencies.

“And despite defendant’s suggestion that the properties covered by the settlement may share no common purpose, their common purpose is simple: to conduct the business of the federal government,” Wang wrote.

She also disputed the assertion that Hegarty unfairly convicted Cordova based on his posttrial arrest in Colorado Springs for similar conduct in a government building. Although prosecutors asked for a harsher sentence in light of Cordova’s repeated behavior, Wang found no evidence that Hegarty took Cordova’s arrest into account when he handed down his sentence.

The case is United States v. Cordova.