Funny. Him mentioning the 1st is no more relevant than what color his shirt was or if he had muffin tops for breakfast.
But much more amusing than the colour of his shirt or what he ate for breakfast. My observation was a casual comment. The OP wanted to have a longer discussion about it, so I obliged, being the accommodating person that I am.
Minstrel is a Democrat who only believes in the Constitution when his party is harmed. Thanks Minstrel. Your posts in this thread told me so! You're a fascist. Got it.
Not really, though. You still have not proven your point, and the fact that a news agency was allowed exclusive rights to film a public event held inside of a church brings up some troubling questions.
Fair enough, but why attack me for staying on topic? And I AM interested in your views of the bigger issues of: 1. Assault and battery on a journalist by agents of a government supported entity (the church) in order to conceal what was promised to them by a candidate for governor. 2. Why is a candidate for governor holding a "public forum" in a church? Seems there might be some Constitutional issues in that suspicious act.
As we agreed, what I was talking about was on topic. It #3 on your list of approved topics! I didn't "attack" you, I simply pointed out that your response to me was irrelevant to what I said. I am against assault and battery against anyone. The motives for not allowing the filming can be speculated upon. Hard to believe it was to conceal what the candidate said when a local news station was allowed to film it. Because churches are one type of community center. Community centers tend to be popular places for politicians to talk to the community. What Constitutional issue might that be? Politicians have spoken at churches for many years...I'm not aware of any Constitutional language that discourages or outlaws it.
Huh? Your "facts" don't apply to my thread, and you seem to be condoning assaulting people in a public forum when other people are allowed to film the proceedings.
LOL Minstrel is now in multiple response mode to a thread that he was already "victorious" in. You're in the "should" again, my man.
Sure they do. The apply to whether he had first amendment rights to film. He didn't, based on the actual first amendment. Really? That's strange. It didn't seem that way to me at all.
I'm enjoying this thread. Yo, man, that's deep. I agree...we "should" actually pay attention to what the Bill of Rights actually says and what the Supreme Court actually said.
Nowhere in the First Amendment is there any mention, hint, or wisp of smoke denying an American citizen or journalist from filming a candidate for office because he's speaking in a church. I am unaware of any other Federal, State, County or City law that does so either, and he has not been charged with anything in relation to his doing so.
I never said it was irrelevant to the thread. Just to the discussion I was having with BGrantFan, that you responded to. I'm sure another media source would be happy to get this scoop about KOIN being bought off. You should alert other news agencies. Unless they've ALL been bought off by Kitzhaber. How cunning of you! However, I was not using some technical term, I was using it to mean a place where community congregate. A Shriner's Club is also a community center in that sense, yet still very much a private entity that can enforce its own rules about what can and cannot be done. I'm afraid not. Separation of church and state regards how laws can be made. Not where politicians can speak.
