Posted on 09/24/2010 11:44:49 AM PDT by penelopesire
Approximately 10 minutes into the speech the moderator informs the public not to film. The citizen continues to film, stating it is his First Amendment Right. The camera is smashed into his face. This is clearly seen on the video.
Please explain how one uses “reasonable force” in that context without assault.
Agreed. It was good that he held back and I hope he can follow through, though I hope he get good legal advice on whether to do so.
Oh, then this was apparently a Democrat campaign event.
If this were a political campaign event in a church, then the photographer was filming a crime in action. No wonder they didn't want anyone filming it.
Did anyone report the church to the IRS?
The video you linked to did not contain footage of O'Donnell speaking, or indeed any speaker on the podium at the Beck rally where this was allegedly filmed. There was plenty of video footage of the Beck rally, so why were these leftists harassed for recording?
Could it be that they were not filming the podium, but were instead being obnoxious towards other attendees and disrupting their ability to focus on the rally. Were they recording private individuals at the rally, raising concerns that they were compiling footage for the purpose of later identification and harassment of people in attendance? It's hard to tell.
In the general case of prohibitions for filming on private property, it's generally for the purpose of:
A)Maintaining a monopoly on commercial value of the event (eg, concerts, sporting events), orIn the case in question, it was a public figure addressing the public, so the request to not film, while legal, was not appropriate.B) Maintaining the expectation of privacy of the people there.
In any event, responding to the recording by assaulting the recorder was a really bad idea. A better response would have been "You are on private property, we are now ordering you to leave, if you remain you will be arrested for defiant trespass", and called police to remove him. If the gov was present, then there would be law enforcement people there too.
A couple of links ahead of the event:
http://portlandobserver.com/?p=5043
Many of these groups can be very savvy on how to run such events, which are billed as “educational” and not “political.”
But yes, no Republican candidates...as usual.
A government official, acting in the capacity of a government official, at a public event doesn't enjoy copyright benefits for his words. The only reason a governor might not wish to be recorded is so that he cannot be held to his word at a later date.
That is why the democrats, when deliberating how they could force Obamacare down the peoples' throats, held closed-door meetings without the Republicans - they didn't want the public to know what they were doing or saying.
An open government DEMANDS that the people know, first hand, what the so-called leaders are doing while serving in their official capacity.
Or, put him on the spot, “Why, what are you trying to hide, governor?”
Most of the fine print is on the back of the ticket. If you bought on line, you probably checked the "agree" box during checkout.
Uh...The freedom to assemble doesn't mean "freedom to assemble film footage."
It's in the penumbras...
Oh, that's a little different. I was under the assumption that the governor was still the governor. Is he running for office, or just giving speeches?
They are all candidates.
Governor Kitzhaber is running for governor again, after being out of the office for nearly a decade.
Hmmmnnnn...
Well, my instinct says that the event is then covered by the first amendment as a public event. The man’s running for office. What he says is meant for the public. If it were a closed event, that might be different.
Which means that recording the event is acceptable, if for no other reason than to keep the public informed of what the candidate has to say.
I this black liberation theology? Can’t say I’m acquainted.
>A public figure (governor) giving a public speech has no right to expect or demand recording not be done. Period.<
It appeared to me that a leader of the church a woman was the one who asked for the cameras to be put away. Which I can see no reason for unless they were disturbing the speech (it did not appear so)
>But what is most troubling - what was being hidden?<
Exactly.
I would also like to know if the men who accosted him were arrested. This type of behavior can not go unchallenged. Posting video is fine, but someone needs to suffer consequences for these actions or else it makes it hard on the next person who gets assaulted.
Oregon. Thanks penelopesire.
Oops. This would make the news station the respondent superior in a lawsuit against the guy who slugged the cameraman. Clearly even if the cameraman were violating the unwritten and newly established rule laid down halfway through the event that there was to be no filming, the reaction of the guy who slugged the cameraman was clearly excessive force.
If he were violating some rule of the event, then all they had to do was to remove him with reasonable force or have him placed under arrest by the Portland authorities.
They probably had a right to attempt to take his camera away, but they clearly did not have the right, under the circumstances, to punch out the camera with the cameraman being attached to it. That was a criminal battery and the guy who hit him would be criminally liable and the people who directed him to stop the guy from filming would be civilly liable under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior.
This could be interesting. I hope he sues the TV station. That'll teach em to "sponsor" a political event at a church.
Actually they have a lot of class. It's just all low.
Oregon Ping!
I sent a link to Lars Larson, maybe we can get the press to pick up an assault at a public event by campaign representatives?
Bullshit. It was a public event open to all. This gentleman was assaulted by two black thugs in the employ of political advocacy groups. Videotape everything from at least two angles.
If a white man .... OK. WE GET IT, BLACKS CANNOT BE RACIST. Double standard and all. Unfortunately, for these two amish gentlemen they got caught. Call the lawyer and sue their asses off.
Where was the outcry? If I saw something like that, I'd stand and scream, and shut that droning governor up!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.