On September 23, 2010 I filmed a public “Meet and Greet” and speech by ex-Governor John Kitzhaber. Approximately 10 minutes into the speech the moderator informs the public not to film. I continue to to film as it is my First Amendment Right. I am assaulted. This is clearly seen on the video.
While the assault is clearly a criminal act, as a professional videographer I do know First Amendment rights to videotape do not extend to private property. Citizen journalists need bone up on the rules.
h/t Iron Mike
I see it as blatant thuggery Bob. Beyond that, I think when a private entity [business, church, etc] opens its doors for a public event; the private property protections are waived. I would agree that a journalist could not go snooping or filming in their back rooms, – but this was clearly the main public event.
Somehow I doubt that Eric Holder will be investigating this voter intimidation. I wonder what John Kitzhaber has to say?
Mike, I’d like to see a statute where private property protections are waived. If you have a candidate public meet-and-greet at your home, you mean to tell me you’d waive your rights to deny Think Progress or Huffington Post camerapersons from making a hit piece video?
Again, I did say the punch was a criminal act and should be approached as such, but waiving private property rights? I think you’re way off on this one.
I think we need a real attorney to chime in Bob. I think there is a difference between an entity [church, business] and a private home.
So while I don’t KNOW the answer, I think when you post notices inviting the general public into a church [as opposed to a by-invitation meet-&-greet in your home], that privacy thing is waived. In other words, if you make it public, – it’s public.
Hello America – is there a real attorney [not working for the Democratic Party, MoveON, ACORN, SEIU, etc] who can comment with authority? An Oregon attorney would be best.
For what it’s worth, I think the First Amendment discussion is misplaced. I’ve looked and I can’t find where the First Amendment protects gathering of information, public or private. What it does protect is dissemination of the information, once gathered. The real question, in my view, is whether the Freedom of Information Act applies (each state has its’ own version), and even then, private property owners, in all likelihood, have the right to prohibit videotaping, even of a public official. Case in point: videotaping is, or at least can be, prohibited in many courtrooms, even though the judge is a public official and the case itself (i.e. name of the defendant, nature of the charges, etc.) is public record. In some places, however, I would say videotaping is most likely not prohibited, such as city hall, state legislatures, county administrative courts, etc., but that’s due to Freedom of Information, not the First Amendment. Many city council meetings across our fruited plain are now videotaped and aired on local cable TV channels.
As a side note, the punching in the face is criminal battery (involves actual contact; assault doesn’t necessarily require contact). However, the act of the two goons sitting down beside the guy acting in a threatening manner, with the ability to carry it out, which one of them eventually did, is probably enough for an assault charge as well.
Legal definitions aside, the situation was handled poorly; what should have happened is for the meeting to have been halted until the guy either stopped videotaping, or until he left. Either way, the goons who sat down by the guy have been emboldened by the Black Panthers, and Eric Holder’s DOJ inaction on black intimidation of white voters.
Or the video-er could have just laid the camera down with the audio still going. Was videotape really necessary? I mean, wasn’t it the words being spoken in which the video-er was really interested? Why wouldn’t audio tape alone have sufficed?
gagblue hit it right on the head. As an official member of the press by The Media Research Center and formerly credentialed by The Senate Radio and TV Gallery, Washington D.C. I will be happy to share with you Iron Mike certain rules and regulations that the press have to abide by.
First off the 1st amendment does say that you have freedom of the press. I’m not a constitutional scholar but I have taken a couple of law classes in the past and while it does say you have freedom of the press, I think that would apply to those who are actually credentialed members of the press. I doubt that a guy with a video camera would classify as an official member of the press.
As a credentialed member of the press, I can tell you that there are certain places in the Capitol building that you cannot film even though Capitol Hill is a tax payer funded place thus making it a public area. While filming may be prohibited in various places in the Capitol building the recording of audio is not. So gagblue is correct in saying that he should have recorded audio rather than shoot video.
Last month I shot man on the street interviews at ground zero in New York. While I was shooting I happened to be on private property even though I was outside on the sidewalk/street. The area I was shooting on happened to be owned by one of the buildings that neighbored that area. A gentleman politely asked me for my credentials and then asked me to move across the street as I am filming on private property. I could have been like the person in this video and complained and said that it is my first amendment right as credentialed member of the press to film and be here but I knew my limitations seeing that I was on private property.
Just to show some proof that I am an official member of the press. Here is a picture of Derrick Dockery of the Washington Redskins and I on the grounds of the Capitol Hill Building at his Private event on Brest Cancer. In the picture my credential is visible because it is supposed to be visible at all times as stated in the hand book given to all those credentialed by the Senate Radio and TV Gallery.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs264.snc1/9129_1284925603222_1232580061_30855889_3899343_n.jpg
Cory ,thanks for the feedback, things look a little clearer.
However, the point being brought up that a PUBLIC gathering was happening in the church is a really grey area and probably needs some ruling by the court. The videographer could reasonably assume that taking pictures was okay. Was it posted outside the church? Somewhere in the building? The videographer had a reasonable expectation (in my uneducated opinion) that First Amendment rules applied there. So I would lean in favor that the exercise of the First Amendment was right and proper here.
But what do *I* know, I’m just an Engineer and think logically…
Igor
Cory, regarding the first amendment you said:
“while it does say you have freedom of the press, I think that would apply to those who are actually credentialed members of the press.”
Are you saying that in order for a citizen to exercise an enumerated right contained in the constitution that they first have to have some government credential? Doesn’t the bill of rights set out those things that the govenment can’t take away from us and that we don’t have to ask them for? What government lacky do I go to to ask for my credentials to exercise a constitutional right?
If you take a few more constitutional law classes maybe you’ll learn that the bill of rights applies to “the people.”