This time from a public John Kitzhaber for Governor in Oregon event.
Add this to Rep. Bob “Who Are You” Etheridge grabbing a student filming him and SEIU thugs assaulting Kenneth Gladney, and a picture emerges of a party that is willing to use violence to suppress the first amendment rights of their political opponents.
Edited to add: Just to be clear, if you blow up the invitation shown at 14 seconds into the video, it says “Open to the public and free of charge.”
Edited to add 2: For an update on the legal issues raised, see here.
(Hat Tip: The Corner.)
Tags: assault, Democrats, John Kitzhaber, thugs, video
One would think Afro-Americans would understand the concept of civil rights.
But then union thuggery is color blind.
I hope you either sue or press charges against these a-holes.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but your first amendment rights do not apply when you are on private property.
The camera man is an idiot. The first amendment says “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.”
The church is not congress. The church where this was held can establish rules about whether or not video taping is allowed. I don’t condone the actions of the people who pushed the camera into his face, but he should have followed their instructions and turned the camera off. His argument about this being a place where the public was invited so he can film the event doesn’t hold water. The public is invited to tour the halls of congress, but you can’t take any pictures there or do any filming either.
All of the people who yell about their first amendment rights being violated need to read and understand the first amendment.
Thank you for continuing to film and insist on your Constitutional rights.
This sort of thuggery continues to happen, every day and without video evidence, heck even WITH video evidence, it’s likely that nothing will be done about it.
I wonder if John Kitzhaber has any sense how badly this will affect his campaign. I’ll keep an eye on the big media and see if anyone actually picks this up.
I *will* bring it to the attention of the hosts on Boston Talks, 96.9 WTKK on Monday.
The camera guyis an a$$hole. He is on PRIVATE PROPERTY and the owners make the rules. !t was an open to the public event and as a member of the public he had every right to be there, but those rights are limited by the OWNERS of the property. The camera guy is so contemptibley stupid when it comes to his Constitutional rights that it constitutes criminality. Anyone who disagrees, needs to take a good read of the First Amendment.
SEIU members had the right to throw his sorry ass in the street. Good for Them. The dork is lucky it wasn’t Ironworkers or United Mine Workers or Longshoremen. Otherwise, he’s have ended up at his proctologist ‘s office asking the doctor to retrieve his video camera.
What picture of violence you politard?
Legally, this guy was required to stop filming when asked to by a representative of the private facility he was in. He mistakenly quotes the First Amendment, which guarantees his right to free speech, but doesn’t confer any legal right to record or photograph.
Generally, you can legally film or photograph in a public place such as a street, park, etc. But that coverage doesn’t extend into a private facility such as a church or a shopping mall or store. The owner of the facility has the right to ask you to leave.
That being said, I hope those jackasses get arrested for assault. They had no right to the camera or to physically touch the gentleman. Their only recourse is to bring the police in and have them force him to leave based on trespassing laws.
Maybe he used to be a cop.
I think you deserved it.. found the clip refreshing hilarious
As has already been stated, when on PRIVATE PROPERTY (as a church is) the 1st Amendment does not apply. As a teenager I was once kicked out of a mall for videotaping there. Just like the meeting, malls are “open to the public,” but most will kick you out for videotaping. You don’t have to agree with them, but they have the right to establish rules inside of their property (unless, of course, you don’t care for the concept of private ownership…) Regardless, study the 1st Amendment more and also learn about private property. Perhaps then your videos will have relevance and a cogent point to make.
You’re on private property, the people asking you to stop filming are not government officials, you have no clue about their personal party affiliation, and you refused to behave in a respectful, polite manner.
There is not a first amendment issue, this is someone who wanted to start something, did so successfully, and is now showing their ignorance of the law.
When you are on someone else’s property you must follow their rules or leave. Just because they invited you on their property to begin with, doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want. It’s still their property and they get to decide what the rules are not you.
The fact that you were a jerk and continued to film after having been asked to stop has nothing to do with politics. You’d be wrong if you were a liberal hippy at a Sarah Palin event or a fascist thug at a William Ayers book signing party.
You’d think as a supposed conservative that you’d respect the private property rights of others. If you own private property you have the right to kick other people off your property, whether its because they refuse to stop filming or because they smell funny or because they just want you to leave.
This guy was there to vilify Kitzhaber and when he found nothing of substance to he could use, he took the “Glen Beck” approach: be the biggest tool you can by wrapping yourself in the constitiution (which he hadn’t bothered to read) and create as big a disturbance as you can.
Does When did being an a–hole become a badge of patriotism?
For those of you claiming that his First Amendment right does not extend to the church, let me explain why you are wrong. To begin with, churches are NOT private property. They are non-profits entities that are open to the public. They are not owned by any one person. Secondly, when the government hosts a forum in a church, and invites the public, the forum becomes public property de facto. Ergo, the Constitution is in force.
In any event, the man was assaulted by two thugs. If they are representatives of the church, they are terrible representatives. They should be arrested.
Seen from Every angle :
A jerk who was repeatedly asked to stop while at an event on private property.
Seen in the previous posts: a bunch of idiots that no nothing about the constitution except how to pronounce the word constitution.
1) All you who think it’s great for owners of private property to establish rules for their property, good for you. I suppose you support repealing ordinances and laws that prohibit smoking in private establishments, right? I mean, to be consistent and all…
2) It’s a a church. So glad they demonstrated the non-violence that we have come to expect from churches…
3) It was open to the public, and it was hosting a public figure (a politician). It was a public event, and the public figure is put in place by the public. He had every right to film. Unless you have no problem with politicians being able to have secret meetings in which no records are kept…
Listen… I’ll reiterate what’s already been pointed out but appears to be still conveniently ignored…
VIDEO TAPING IS NOT SPEECH!
Punching people in the face (even with a video camera) is also not ok. Then again, on private property, you ARE allowed to shoot people in the face… but only if you have immediate fear for your life. Clearly this camera man was not a physical threat. Just an asshole. And you’re not allowed to punch assholes just for being assholes.
The issue isn’t the First Amendment, it’s TRESPASSING. At the 2:17 mark, he was told to either stop filming or leave. He refused to do either. I hope the church presses charges.
your a complete fool, you have no right to refuse to comply with the organizers of an event on private property. in your own video you show the moderator (or someone on the panel) telling you to stop filming. you should have put the camera down or just left the building. they could have – should have expelled you from the building. i’d like to know when your outrage over your first amendment rights began, after a black democrat was fairly elected to office or were you fighting for your rights when they were actually taken from you under gwb. your entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts dumbass.
[…] commentators on yesterday’s post and video about a man being assaulted by liberal thugs for the crime of videotaping Democrat Gubernatorial […]
Is this more of that transparency we were promised from Obama? The man is running for Governor, the public has a right to know what was said. It doesn’t matter, this event tells you all you need to know about the democrats and their unionized thugs. Union members being used like pawns to push an agenda that will have us all paying six dollars a gallon for gas, and leave the middle class trying to figure out how to pay their outrageous utility bills while riding the commuter train to the job site. Meanwhile the elite keep sucking this country dry.As they systematically force more industry overseas with stifling nonsensical regulations, you’ll find yourself out of a job, and left out in the cold no longer of any use to the union.Go ahead keep jumping through hoops for communists like Andy Stern until freedom is a distant memory, and every last one of you are working for the government.
http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2010/08/carpenters-union-president-at-ground-zero-axed-for-cronyism/
I find these arguments emotional but ill-considered.
If the public is invited, and recording devices are not allowed, the invite should (or may) have said so (common to prevent lawsuits). If it did not explicitly say so, then a reasonable person would assume that whether taping, writing down, photographing, or videotaping the event would be acceptable. The invited public cannot read the minds of the event organizers, and certainly wouldn’t expect to be punched for doing any of the documentations above.
Secondly, regardless of the motives of the person shooting the videotape, that does not give someone permission to punch someone in the face (or the camera). The people who did that should be arrested and tried for assault and battery. They did not identify themselves as proprietors of the church, and so as far as the camera man was concerned, they may have been asking him to do something improper (or illegal). He had the right to refuse.
Consider if he had a medical condition (one that unfortunately really exists) that affected his short term memory, and he was recording the event so he could refer to it in the future? He is under no requirement to share his medical issues with strangers, but it would certainly cast a different light on some thugs punching him.
Finally, it seems obvious that the proper steps would have been to have someone identified from the church ask him to stop filming or to leave. If he refused, the proper step would have been to call the police, who would identify the issues involved (i.e. public or private meeting) and either removed the cameraman, possibly erased his tape, or reinforced his right to be there filming at a public event.
I can’t remember who said it, but “The Law protects you even when you are being an ass”. However, the thugs that assaulted him clearly were out of (legal) bounds. They (and possibly the organizers of the meeting, if they condoned their actions) should be arrested, tried, and possibly sued (if found complicit). That is how the law works.
So anytime a politician doesn’t want to be taped he or she can just go to church, or someones’ house, and do so? Of course not. If a government official goes to a private place and makes a public speech, citizens are permitted to tape it under the first amendment. End of story…cretins.
They should’ve called the police if they thought they were in the legal right.
This is a clear state of two groups of people that refuse to understand or respect one another.
You idiot. Your first amendment rights don’t apply while you’re on private property!
Re: ALEX
Videotaping is not speech, but it can certainly be argued as the press, which is also protected under the First Amendment.