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.
“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.”
That might be it, but I think the people who took the camera should have explained that.
I know at my church we have had public officials come and talk at varies Forums, and we usually sell a professional DVD afterwords.
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.
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.
After rereading the 1st amendment, how was this NOT the exercise of free press? The 1st guarantees a FREE PRESS folks!
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
I wonder if this church has tax exempt status? If so why are the holding a political meeting?