How is filming an event being "obnoxious". Plus, heckling happens at many political events. It didn't happen at this one, though. Plus, I don't believe that you've never disrupted a public event. Your entire m.o. is to disrupt things (I like that, btw).
Are you accusing me of being an outside agitator? I'll have the FBI on you for that agitprop. Like you say, how is my filming a Republican event being obnoxious? I'll quote you to them, especially if they've designated one cameraman, like this event did. I'll hog the spotlight by blocking spectators' views with my camera and large straw hat with a long pink feather. There's no law against blocking people's views.
\\ I agree. Go for it. It's your right, so long as it is a forum open to the public. I'll even join you at a Republican "public" event to disrupt it, should you extend me an invitation. That is my belief as an independent/Libertarian.
Sorry, your pink feather isn't long enough. So anyway, if Mike's excerpt gets out, it will cause a revolution in behavior at meetings. Assuming it's accurate. Those who run events have no control over the audience. Just stay legal. For example, in the Jay Leno audience while he's interviewing his friend Schwarzenbeggar in front of a million people, it's legal to yell at your friend, "Hey Luigi, Jay sucks tonight!" Assuming it's accurate.
I'm afraid your position is confused... the stream of court cases I noted clearly state their terms of First Amendment grounds. Go read them all, come back here, and admit your failure. Not at all. What that says is effectively, the US Constitutional first amendment protection is so obvious in this case that state constitutional protections (which may be more - but not less- expansive) have rarely been an issue. "Moreover, the state courts have limited the situations in which these protections are applicable to only a few, such as those involving political speech.". That is, not only is the political process so important that it's subject to First Amendment protection safeguarding it even on private property (when that property has been opened to public forum status), states have additional powers to protect such speech under their own constitutions.
No, they lose some control. It does generally fall upon the "breaks no law" lines, but these laws are almost universally interpreted to mean "disruption is not ok". The line is always a gray one, of course. Did you catch the Jon Stewart show thing the other day about the union that was (hiring temporary workers at minimum wage with no benefits) picketing at Wal-Mart to protest the fact that the company hires workers at minimum wage with no benefits. Even if they conduct their protest (which is not at all of Wal-Mart's chosing) somewhat on Wal-Mart's property (say on a private, store owned sidewalk in front of the parking lot), they are not disrupting the store's operation. If, say, they stood in front of the driveway into the parking lot, so folks couldn't get in to shop, that'd be illegal disruption. So... you're a Republican? Seriously, I know everyone's got their strongly held views, but it'd be good to take a step back from them. Yes, I suppose one could technically make closed events. I know in practice both parties sometimes do this, and sometimes do not. For example, back when I lived in Virginia, a Republican senator (George Allen) got himself in trouble for slandering a Democratic party worker who was there filming Allen's talk. Same basic principle; public forum, so opponents can show up and film.
That isn't what it seems to effectively say. It seems to say that not only are the exceptions for first amendment rights applying beyond government extremely few (precisely two, of the thousands of types of private entities), even in those two exceptions, the scope is very narrow: "only a few, such as those involving political speech."
Once again you misrepresent the facts. The laws regulate non-profits (churches), not politicians or campaigns. The Federal Tax Laws linked define how non-profit organizations (churches...) are or are not allowed to participate in campaigns. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is releasing this fact sheet to provide information to help section 501(c)(3) organizations stay in compliance with the federal tax law. ... The IRS is providing this fact sheet to help ensure that charities have enough advance notice of the types of problems that have occurred, the legal strictures against engaging in political activities and how to avoid these problems. ... Churches should also see Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations. Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations During election campaigns, many churches, universities, hospitals, social service providers, and other section 501(c)(3) organizations are uncertain about the extent to which they can discuss issues of importance in the campaigns or interact with candidates for public office. They are also uncertain about the role they can play in encouraging citizens to register and vote. This fact sheet is intended to help organizations understand what they can and cannot do when an election campaign is under way. The Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Those section 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations are subject to additional restrictions that are not described in this fact sheet. What is Political Campaign Intervention? Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention. Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate for public office will also violate the prohibition. Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity. Although section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in some activities to promote voter registration, encourage voter participation, and provide voter education, they will violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention if they engage in an activity that favors or opposes any candidate for public office. Certain activities will require an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether they result in political campaign intervention. [/QUOTE]
As human beings we are all born with the right to do anything we damn well please, as long as we can defend ourselves and not give ground. We only lose rights, and only then by not defending them adequately. So there is never a reason or need to prove one has certain rights. Only a need for oppressors to prove they can take it away.
