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.
If Kitzhaber had any brains, he would have told them loudly to leave the man alone...
He’d have looked great doing so...
If there was a problem with cameras recording it should have been posted.
If there were copyright issues the people attending would or should have been asked to sign something saying they understood they were not allowed to record anything.
The fact that event was billed as Open to the public may or may not negate a private property claim.
I am not a lawyer and I didn’t even sleep in a Holiday Inn Express.
The camera guy could have yelled out, “Don’t Taze Me, Bro!”
Not a good idea. We will overcome this kind of thing in the courthouses and polling stations in Nov. Their little reign of tyranny is coming to a close on Nov. 2!
Exactly!
Contact Info
Emmanuel Church
Emmanuel Offices
1033 N. Sumner
Portland, OR 97217
Phone: 503-287-2223
Fax: 503-287-7990
http://emmanuelpdx.com/about/leadership/pastors.html
Looks like some (black) folks are real nervous about filming at events like this after the big dustup over the release of the video exposing the racist Shirley Sherrod.
The thugs had not authority to assult the man. I hope he presses charges.
You shouldn’t be allowed to hit someone in the face on private property either. It’s generally considered assault and battery.
Dont hold PUBLIC meetings then.
Maybe we can declare D.C. private property and get rid of those pesky cameras there too?
Agreed.
Good grief, it was a public political forum hosted in a church. As a political newbie, our group has hosted forums that we filmed, and we still had NO problem if someone attending wanted to film it as well, so long as they were not intrusive in doing so. Heck, technology being what it is, we might have needed to borrow their copy ; P
We welcomed their efforts because we were assuming/hoping that they were interested enough to actually take it home to share it with family and friends who might not have been able to attend.
God bless,
Tatt
A .45 would have been a good response.
Agreed, and I don't know if they did that or not. But I do know that they announced very publicly that this was not allowed. And no admission fee was paid, correct?
I don't want The State coming in and telling churches what rules they must use for attendance.
If there were copyright issues the people attending would or should have been asked to sign something saying they understood they were not allowed to record anything.
Oh, yeah...every concert I've attended had long lines as people filled out the paperwork to go inside. Or not.
I'm not a lawyer and I didn't get enough sleep last night anyway, but check out this and here.
Especially in light of the latter link, I think that a lot of it would hinge on whether the event was equivalent to being in the public square. What a bad precedent it would set to claim that a church is equivalent to public property.
I’d say Black theology
No one is saying a church is “public property”.
The church invited a public official to speak and invited the public in. And this member of the public recorded the public official speaking at a public event.
In the future, hold a private event, and send out RSVPs, and clearly state that no recording is allowed.
Thanks for the link. I just did a quick look thru on the Portland Urban League’s flicker account looking for the assailant. No luck so far.
However here is their webpage I'll bet you are right.
1. Winning Souls :: We believe every born again believer is empowered through the baptism of the Holy Ghost to be witnesses for the Lord Jesus Christ and win souls — proclaiming good news about God’s love and forgiveness to those around us.
Having watched this, I have two observations. 1.) The person operating the camera knows how to say “It’s my First Amendment right” over and over again but has apparently never actually read the amendment in question. 2.) I fully support the use of physical force to eject unwelcome behavior on private property.
I couldn't agree more. Liberty is a right endowed to us by God. Besides, the limitations of Amendment I apply to Congress only.
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.