Court Rules Republicans Who Confiscate Cameras At Town Halls Are Violating 1st Amendment

It all depends on who gives them the most money, *ahem*, speech.

With Roberts, Thomas and Alito they will find a way to protect those wusses. I truly hope Kennedy comes back from the dark side. Ordinary people need someone more people on the court who know the law and do not just disregard established law to protect corporations.It's disgraceful what Roberts has allowed the court to become.

I like the 2nd and please be so kind as to point out a batch of DEM congressional reps who banned cameras cuz I must have missed all that. Been so busy reading about Grand Old Projectionist congressmen using the suppression tactic.

Clearly you did “accuse the poster of the lead article of being a dishonest political hack seeking to tell a little white lie to belittle even more the Republican party.”

When in fact the lead poster was pointing out in the second paragraph

”One of the ways that unpopular House Republicans have been trying to dodge the wrath of their angry constituents during the August recess is to not allow filming at their town halls.
Last week, Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio directed on duty police officers to confiscate the cameras of citizens who tried to film his responses at a recent town hall. Chabot justified this behavior as necessary for the protection of his constituents, but a Federal Court ruling on Friday makes it clear that the Republicans who engaging in this behavior are violating the First Amendment rights of their constituents.”

I don’t think the Republican Party needs any help, they are belittling them - selves.

If you read my post you will see that my statement is that the decision extends to government officials not just one party. The opening post said that the court ruled that Republicans who confiscated cameras are violating the First Amendment but what the court said was that "government officials", regardless of party affiliation, may not do this. The author of the opening post is misleading everyone else in his/her account. Is it your contention that it is OK for Dems to confiscate cameras?

If you read my first sentence you will see (ha, revelation!) that it is absolutlely a violation of the First Amendment but tell you what Lisayou, my response means whatever you want it to mean how about that. I'm not a Republican but reading the responses of Democrats or at least those I assume are Dems due to their defense of that party, I would rather have a son who is a piano player in a whorehouse than a Democrat brain surgeon.

It's not OK for DEMs to confiscate cameras, it's just that it has only been Republicans who have pulled this crap, thus, your umbrage is amusing. Dissecting gnats is cute but as a defense, pointing fingers and pouting while saying 'what about them' when 'them' aren't the problem is somewhat unworthy.

I see I should not have any further conversations with you (table) since you can't argue with a table.

The equivalent of this conversation:

Schnookums: Hey, Paratus! Do you want some breakfast? I'm cooking a little for everyone, you can have some if you like!

...Oh! Hold on, let me clean your plate so that you don't get disease from eating off of something dirty... You know, scientists have found that eating off of dirty plates could get you sick!

Paratus: Absolutely we should clean the plate, however, and this will probably be a big "however" in this house, that concept extends to, are you ready for this..........THE PLATE AND THE FLOOR. Your assertion revealed some of the idea:

"we have found that people have the right to eat from a clean surface. In fact, this right is necessary in our kitchen to counteract attempts by microbes who have power to make us sick from eating on dirty surfaces. The act of not allowing someone to eat off of a clean surface is an act of exposing them to pathogens."

Note that the idea did not say that eating on a dirty plate is violating the concept, it stated that eating on a dirty surface is. Obviously only our "chef" thinks that only cleaning the plate is necessary.

attilatheblond: No one eats on the floor, I've only ever seen anyone eat on a plate.

tlbuffin: ... o_O ...he was talking about cleaning your pla...

Paratus: Now, I will not accuse the scientists of telling us to eat on a dirty floor, but clearly the fact that the concept of eating on a clean surface, regardless of what it is, seems to have slipped the eagle eyed notice of Schnookums.

Lisayou: ... but we weren't going to eat on the floor, YOU accused her of wanting to eat on the floor. No one here has ever eaten on the floor. What are you ta...

Paratus: Tell me, does your penchant for following Science only extend to cleaning a surface you eat on, or any of the other stated theories about biology, physics or chemistry, or do we just eat on clean plates when it suits us??

Creditfigaro: ... Well... what?... yeah, I think... what the hell have you been smoking?

:Fin:

Thomas: "Individuals are not people, only corporations are people, therefore only corporations are permitted to film citizens. Next case!"

The law only applies to Republicans. What do you think?

That hasn't happened, as far as I can tell.

It has. Just not this week when it's the focus of the board.

I'd actually like to see that.

In the past when Obama has shut down cameras and asked (intimidated) reporters to leave the room, I have commented on it. You're right, it's wrong no matter who does it.

Please let us know what DEMs have done this. Meanwhile, I won't hold my breath that 'well, what about them?' is a legitimate 'argument'. It does seem to be the issued talking point response, which is typical.

Easy: they told voters what they wanted to hear and rely on county clerks to make voting difficult and/or meaningless.

While that may be the case, a trial in court is important to a limited number of parties. Far smaller group in that situation than the entire public. In some cases it would be difficult to give a fair trial to the accused.

If you want to look at it from a fiscal point of view, it is cheaper for our gov't to keep camera's out than it is to sequester a jury.

If we are going to conflate town-halls with courtrooms, perhaps we should require speakers to have a stenographer produce an accurate transcript of the event?

Whether cameras are permitted in U.S. courtrooms is usually up to either state legislation or left up to the judge in the particular case, meaning there's no consistent policy on cameras in the courtroom. Some courts never allow cameras, some allow gavel-to-gavel recordings, some permit videotaping of the opening & closing arguments only.

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently refused to have cameras in their proceedings, which are by virtue of the Constitution, supposed to be open to the public. Considering the nationwide, even worldwide, impact of the rulings that come from the Supreme Court, and that the public that is theoretically permitted to attend any Supreme Court proceedings mostly lives too far away to personally attend these proceedings, it smells bad to this citizen that there aren't cameras in Supreme Court proceedings as a matter of course.

BRAVO

Law enforcement may know the law but their not above abusing the laws either, and if forced them to take it off your person they would say that you fought them or they feared for their safety and kick the holly shit out of you, and our wonderful republican representative would remark how great it was that the cops used such restraint. So may be we need some one to secretly film them confiscating the camera

Right on! The use of "security" technology has built a wall between citizens, who have as part of their Constitutional rights the right to petition for redress of grievances, and the officials that by law work for us. It's only fair that if technology exists that makes it easier for us to know what our elected officials are doing, and to make it easier to petition our elected officials, that use of such technology should be a matter of course.

Power to the people! -- Damn right!

wolfess, I didn't say "Power to the Peons." That's yours! :)

Yeah, but I really was agreeing with you :-) -- doesn't really matter how it's said, just matters that it IS said!!! And look at it this way -- if both of us are saying it in our own way it's gonna reach more people and that's all I ever wanted in the first place.

How are things with you? Haven't seen you around here much lately -- hope that's b/c you've been crazy busy and haven't had time to do anything but count all that money you guys are earning :-)!

I watched the vids on Paul Ryan -- what a piece of shit -- that S.O.B. needs to be filing for unemployment yesterday!
Pwr 2 all good liberal peons! Dismember all reptard infidels!

"And look at it this way -- if both of us are saying it in our own way it's gonna reach more people." That correct, wolfess. :)

"Haven't seen you around here much lately " That's because WI summer's are so short and my husband and I enjoy them as much as we can. The weather has been beautiful here, lately. Nope, it's not because we won POWERBALL...yeah...I wish.

"I watched the vids on Paul Ryan -- what a piece of shit -- that S.O.B. needs to be filing for unemployment yesterday! "

Tell me about it, wolfess. Total scumbag!

Have ya noticed that once ya hit 39 time seems to go waaaay too fast :-)? I know what you mean about enjoying the nice weather while we have it -- it was really hot here for a few weeks but a couple weeks ago it dropped back down to the high 70s and low 80s and for the most part it's stayed there.
My garden's doing really well but I have to keep telling the dogs to stay away from the tomatoes -- I've had a caprese salad already -- it's soooo much better with homegrown tomatoes and basil :-)!!!
Next week I'm powerwashing and staining the deck; tried hiring someone to do it last spring but refused to spend a thousand when I could get a power washer for a couple hundred!
Enjoy the rest of your summer and stay well.
Pwr 2 the peons! Recall Scott Walker!

"Have ya noticed that once ya hit 39 time seems to go waaaay too fast :-)?" Do I hear you on that! The years go by quicker and quicker. Too fast for me. This coming weekend is Labor Day weekend already. Then it's Fall and before you know it, hubby and I will be facing another WI winter....now that's depressing. Sounds like the weather has been nice by you, too. Enjoy your garden and good luck with the deck.
Take care, have fun and you stay well also. :)
Recall Walker!

your aunt sally's goat will probably do a better job in congress; than these idiots.

I'd like to note that even most mid-price cell phones have built-in video recording capabilities. If you don't want to carry a camera, you can get a phone that will serve the purpose, too (and, with the right kind of service, one could send important video to someone else quickly....)

I buy the cheap tracphones that can do all that. They cost about twenty bucks each.

While you may be content to sit down in the face of hypocrisy, you'll find most here actively standing up to it.

Are you saying that pointing out the hypocrisy of dems is a good thing or is hypocrisy limited to repubs?

Pointing out hypocrisy, whomever it pertains to, is a good thing.

Ah yes, the old deflection trick. Unfortunately we are talking about republicans confiscating cameras at public town hall meetings (!?), not the entirely separate issue of casket filming.

Are you not outraged at anyone trying to limit explicit free speech?

If I remember correctly Obama ask the family members to choose whether to allow or not The filming of our soldiers returning to Dover.
You are right.
"(the media puts the "death toll updates" on the back burner)"
Do you agree?

I agree 100%

No tricks just stating facts. Wouldn't the same constitutional rights apply in both cases?
Issues like this occur in both parties, and politicians pander to their constituents, and pundits doctor videos to make their points. Free speech is a good thing,

In the Helicopter crash the Pentagon said that they didn't have all the body parts sorted out yet so permission couldn't be obtained for individual caskets. It seems odd to me that one needs permission to take pictures of a flag drapped casket since no identification is visible.

Yep, the one they'd love to have after they got through tearing up the one we have.

It seems to me that the Republicans' attitude toward the Constitution is like the pre-Vatican II Catholic church attitude toward the Bible: When we make reference to the revered document, that ends your right to argue, but you're not qualified to read or interpret the sacred document for yourself.

Oh snookums you make me laugh, I know you have paid close attention to their various interpretations of the Constitution. I think they must be reading their constitution under the influence of hallucinogentics.

If they are, I hope they don't find themselves burdened by circumstance and needing help in the State of Florida.