It was on private property. I guess we've lost the right to decide what we allow on our own property?
THIS one had this as an open meeting to the public....
Remembering the John Ziegler/USC incident. A private property owner has a right to ask you to stop filming while on their property and to have you removed if you fail to comply. Physical battery did take place, though. Sounds like we need a beer summit.
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?
If a private facility asks the governor of the state to give a speech on their property that is open to the public at large and the governor is speaking in his official capacity as the governor, then the facility for all intents and purposes is public property and people on the property enjoy the same rights and privileges they would otherwise enjoy if the event were to have occurred on public property.
In this case, because of the public and political nature of the event, the private property became quasi public property and the church ushers who assaulted the cameraman were acting as quasi officials of the state.
If this were a private political event, then what the heck is it doing in a church?
“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.