You cannot assault someone for filming you.
You can call the police and have them removed.
Hmmm... Explain how he doesn’t have a right to film a public forum?
The First Amendment:
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.
I guess some FReepers think that it's okay to do whatever you want on someone else's property. When invited to a public event, one can't just behave however one wants. The First Amendment addresses religious freedom, too, but I bet you wouldn't hear too many FReepers yell "First Amendment!" to support the right of a Satanist to start rituals in their church while he attends a meeting that was open to the public. Surely they would have the right to ban such things as a condition of attendance. This isn't a shopping mall.
There's also the copyright issue. Perhaps the church was going to sell DVDs of the event to recoup costs of advertising and security, or whatever.
Too many conservatives forget that when they leave these principles behind, the Left takes advantage of it.
The problem here is the potential assault and battery. But calling the police could have gotten the cameraman in trouble, too, as it seems he might have been in violation of the law, too.
IANAL, though.
Uh...The freedom to assemble doesn't mean "freedom to assemble film footage."
It's in the penumbras...
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.
What part of "public" event don't you get? What, the 1st Amendment is only good in private settings?
>>stating it is his First Amendment Right.
>
>Uh...The freedom to assemble doesn’t mean “freedom to assemble film footage.”
And you can prove that he was not a reporter making a recording of a public event with a general public invitation?
The Oregon State Constitution states:
Art 1, Section 8. Freedom of speech and press. No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.–
Also
Art 1, Section 9. Unreasonable searches or seizures. No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.–
The camera was seized (and used to assault the man) or at least attempted to. {IIRC, that action would be called [attempted] theft as it was not conducted by any authority.}
Yes it does.. if it's a public event.
“Uh...The freedom to assemble doesn’t mean “freedom to assemble film footage.”
“
Freedom of the press, duh.
“The freedom to assemble doesn’t mean “freedom to assemble film footage.””
The govt has stated there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. This is a public official giving an official speech.
What laws limit this kids right to film this event?