Citizen Assaulted for Filming Governor John Kitzhaber Event (Oregon)

Breitbart TV ^ | September 23, 2010 | James O'Keefe

[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.

[chessplayer]

Just following the Dear Leaders orders of “get in their faces.”

[tutstar]

Yeah! and we’ve read what? a couple articles and seen one video. There’s gold in them thar hillz???

[tutstar]

danae,
pene and fitzy have found out who we think this dude is and I’ve just posted one article link and now this one.

Did this guy win election to the school board?

http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/2005-05/psd_4.shtml

Charles McGee III ran for school board

[Danae]

Yep, thats the guy.

WOW.

[dr_who]

Democrats aren’t accustomed to any form of scrutiny in many places. They can do as they please when the cameras aren’t rolling. The press will cover for them.

[metalurgist]

Have you successfully tried this lately at a concert?

Have you ever read the fine print on your ticket? Concerts sell recordings of the event and prohibit you from making your own recordings.

Unless this "church" posted that recording of their public event was prohibited and that your attendance was predicated that you were in agreement with this policy, the "church" can't stop you from filming.

[Gondring]

It’s just an educational session for the community.
The participants on the panel just happen to all be Democrat candidates.

See how the game is played?

[Gondring]

Nope. IANAL, but I think that the ticket agreement is just if you're paying for attendance. If you're offering no consideration, there's no need to post that, as I understand it. Or do churches have to start posting "we reserve the right to boot anyone signs on Sunday?

Also, please see #124.

[Zathras]

These thugs sound like the same guys I chased out of bridgeport village shopping area for terrorizing an elderly couple.

Be safe out there with your video camera!

[Zathras]

Portland/Salem/Eugene is a bastion of Liberal control. The tea party here has been actively working for 2 years to try and change it but change takes time.

You are not helping!

[Ronbo1948]

TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE: We need to have a Second Revolution in this country, and scum like those policemen and security guards who arrest innocent citizens need to go to prison!

[Humidston]

Everyone knows the DOJ and local officials would refuse to take legal action against these attackers.

Their party and their color provides them a trump card any time they want to use it.

Move along now. Nothing to see here...

[ripley]

“It was on private property. I guess we’ve lost the right to decide what we allow on our own property?”

Private property opened to the public with a public figure speaking....

Why did they not just ask the photographer to leave? Why would they have a problem with his filming a public figure in a forum that was advertised as open to all?

He was not invading a private meeting. He was allowed to be there.

Was it necessary to rough him up because he was taking pictures? If it was private property, and if he refused to leave, he could have been arrested. So, why did they choose to push his camera in his face instead of asking him to go and then calling the police if he refused?

Is taking pictures a threat to anyone’s safety? Was anyone endangered? Is it unreasonable that someone take video at a forum that’s advertised as open to the public?

What exactly was the problem?

It certainly wasn’t a case of private property rights being violated.

[Gondring]

Please read the thread.

[ripley]

“Please read the thread.”

Read my comment.

[Impala64ssa]

Politikin’ in a church? Hmmmmmmm. Tax exemption status? I'm thinking the same thing. No "separation of church and state" issues here? Not to mention being physically assaulted in a house of worship of all places? Gotta love that liberation theology. Does this mean Jesus was a gansta?

[Spacetrucker]

2.) I fully support the use of physical force to eject unwelcome behavior on private property.

---

I may be wrong, but doesn't a place of "private property" cease for a time being private property to an extent when a publicly advertised "public event" is held on the premises?

[Spacetrucker]

In regards to the second link: the case depicts an initiative petitioner using a place of private property over the objections of the property owner; this individual would not be the initiative petitioner in this case because the event was the responsibility of the speaker(s) and the church itself; they billed the event as OPEN TO THE PUBLIC; thus surrendering limited certain private property claims.

[Spacetrucker]

The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny. . . . Videotaping is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination and can often provide cogent evidence, as it did in this case. In sum, there can be no doubt that the free speech clause of the Constitution protected Robinson as he videotaped the defendants on October 23, 2002. . . . Moreover, to the extent that the troopers were restraining Robinson from making any future videotapes and from publicizing or publishing what he had filmed, the defendants’ conduct clearly amounted to an unlawful prior restraint upon his protected speech. . . . We find that defendants are liable under [42 USC] § 1983 for violating Robinson’s Fourth Amendment right to be protected from an unlawful seizure. — Judge Harvey Bartle III - Robinson v. Fetterman - http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0847P.pdf

---

GAME, SET, MATCH!

[NoRedTape]

Why was a “church” holding a political event?