That doesn't contradict what I said. The default is that the owner makes the rules on their own property. The exceptions, like for murder, rape, etc, are prohibited by laws. So, unless you can find a law prohibiting citizens from banning video recording on their own property, the church was well within its rights. Just as you are within your rights to tell your guests not to smoke on your property, if you choose to, or not to urinate on your couch. Maybe you can find such a law. If so, please feel free to cite it. That law, however, is not the first amendment.
But the provocateurs wouldn't have filmed covertly, even if were possible. Their purpose was not to film the speaking event. Their purpose was to be obnoxious, create an incident between themselves and anyone who didn't like their behavior, film it, and pretend to be innocent victims. As I said, this is a new technique of Republicans, but it's not getting you any votes because everyone sees through it.
There is no such default. If you have some sort of proof of one please post it. Yes, you can tell people not to smoke on your property. You cannot legally stop them from doing it, if they light up against your wishes. Same goes for anything else they want to do, including film you. Your only legal recourse is to have the police arrest them for trespassing, if they are.
I have no problem with churches becoming political entities so long as they lose their tax-exempt status. Pay taxes like any other business, and then they can support whichever candidates they fancy. Don't pay taxes? Then stay out of politics and stop hosting pseudo-public forums.
Obviously, it's time this country started treating churches for what they are. Nothing more than profit-making businesses and political mouthpieces. Time they paid their taxes just like Real Americans.
Well, it's sort of absurd to ask for an official holding of something so blatantly obvious as this. But sure... Here's a whole string of Supreme Court decisions, which basically operate on the principle that: In this case, the private party was explicitly hosting a public forum. If anything, the fact it was a non-profit religious organization puts more requirements on the host, not less. In those cases, the host must ensure open and non-partisan access to the event for the public. Filming a public event is consistent with that, and throwing out one man who was filming while not throwing out another man who was filming is not. And just as a general proposition, this seems a pretty absurd thing to argue about or object to. Really, it's the most mockable thing in this thread I've seen, if it weren't symptomatic of so much that's wrong. If folks want politics to get better, they could start be extending the golden rule when it comes to basic discourse.
I'm afraid you're confused about my position. I never said that there was no law or ruling that required the church to allow filming. In fact, I said in a previous post that such a law may exist. What I said is that the first amendment is not that law. The IRS policy you linked was not an expansion of the first amendment, it's a part of federal tax law. (And whether it applies to filming is not clear at all, but not worth arguing since it's not relevant to my position.) And you neglected this from your first link about the Supreme Court holdings: So that is no evidence at all that an individual has the "first amendment right" to film in a church, if asked not to.
Interesting, Mike. So unless event organizers predefine their event as nonpublic, the organizers lose all control over audience behavior as long as it breaks no law (i.e. disruption is okay). Beginning with Reagan, Republican presidential candidates have made almost all their campaign speeches only to screened audiences full of Republicans. Democratic candidates have shunned this closed approach and remained open to anyone who wants in. Do Democrats have the legal right to get into Republican events, or can Republicans prevent it by just saying that it's not open to the public?
Federal tax laws about how politicians can campaign are based on the first amendment? Whatever you say, chief.
Yes, they are. Move the goalposts more in this thread. Whatever it takes to defend a Democrat assaulting a guy when it is his right to film!
How do you figure? The goal posts remain right where they started. The guy in the video claimed a first amendment right to film, which I pointed out was wrong. No one has even shown he had a right to film there, let alone a first amendment right to do so.
Huh? We now know that it's okay to disrupt a public meeting as long as you stay legal. Why aren't Republicans celebrating?
Um, OK. You win! This must be why church leaders are trying to change the law, so they can not be considered public property at public events.
How did the videographer "disrupt" the public meeting? Other people were obviously filming the event. Why were they allowed to film this pubic event? Democrats love free speech. LOL Notice that you made this a thread about partisan politics?
Now that Democrats know that we can crash pre-screened Republican events, we'll be showing up with our camcorders and loud horns. It's okay to go to any public event with the purpose to disrupt, using the technique of acting obnoxious, just as long as you stay legal. We'll make your political party into a REAL party! I'll bring the pin the tail on the donkey game.
This is great! I can use my obnoxiousness skills. I've been in the closet all my life, and now the true me can come out.
