You mocked the person claiming First Amendment privilege. It's up to you to prove him wrong, isn't it?
None of what you typed is at all relevant to this debate. Just let Minstrel carry your water. Hint - for your "disclaimer" line - the videographer showed the public invite to the Kitzhaber event.
said the king of irrelevant comments. You asked how they can ask you to stop filming, and I said the same way they can ask you to stop yelling or disrupting a meeting in the same scenario. It's a private building. it's the EXACT same reason why private fund raising events (for D's and R's) can kick someone out for filming or being disruptive. Because they're not the Government and don't have to abide by the 1st amendment in the same manner.
A church that invites the public in for a public event is no longer a private building. Laws, of course, apply, but telling people that they cannot do legal things (such as film a candidate for public office at his own event) doesn't apply. Again, let Minstrel carry your water. You clearly are basiing you opinion on party/politics, and not on the applicable laws.
So if the Rose Garden, a privately owned building, invites fans to the scrimmages, it's now a public building? Based on what precedent? The one you pulled out of your ass? It's a private building. Public means owned by the government, not "well, people got invited to it". Yes they do apply. It's not a Government run building, it's not a Government run event, it is a church who invited him to speak there. They can ask people not to record if they so choose to (although whether or not they should have made it clearer form the start is a different issue, or how the 3rd gentleman handled it). That doesn't change anything, no matter how many times you say "Let Minstrel carry your water". I know the church I went to as a kid didn't allow recording devices in the church during services (never understood why..both why they didn't allow it, or why anyone would want to record it). Even during their public events they held during the year, including a few political speakers.
Yes, I did. The amendment is clear in its wording and the Supreme Court case is clear in its wording. It prevents the government from infringing upon expression. It's up to you (or him) to prove that the church's actions fall within the purview of an amendment about government action.
If you have a letter invite from them, apparently that makes the house party a government institution. Or something. X-treme civics here.
Actually, it's up to you. And you can't. I'll reiterate my bemusement at Democrats wanting to deny the expression of free speech in a house of worship at an announced public event. That's doubly ironic.
I did show that it only applies to the government. The Bill of Rights is available for anyone to peruse. If you know of a Supreme Court case (as I did, and referenced) that expands the protection, feel free to name it or link to it. Or don't. IN A HOUSE OF WORSHIP? THATS IRONIC
About a year ago there was an article about a church in the eastern US. They got the police to restrict entrance to a girl with some mental problem like autism or something. The girl kept screaming during services. The mother would bring her. The mother refused every time to sit in a separate room and listen to the sermon with the girl. She didn't think it was disruptive but everyone else did. So the police gave the mother the order to stay away, and she did, to avoid arrest. Problem solved. I don't know whether the church had a sign that said "Everyone welcome," but I doubt that it mattered to the police.
BGrantFan seems to have forgotten to tell us that this was a setup. http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2010/09/video_of_altercation_at_kitzha.html We had a thread a couple of months ago about a similar setup in which some Senator in the East justifiably grabbed the provocateur's camera. This new technique by the Right isn't scoring them any points because everyone sees right through it. So they leave out the information that it was a setup, as BGrantFan did.
I truly don't know if the Supreme Court has ever ruled on a case exactly like this one. I do think that they should, because these "men of God" should have been beaten right there in the church in front of the rest of them. This seems to me like something I vaguely remember. Something about city councils holding private meetings to avoid public meeting laws. If this was a white church in the South and David Duke was running for office and the some Klan member representing the church said "no filming and no blacks allowed" would it still be private property? From reading what jlprk wrote, some people think it acceptable to physically assault someone pointing a camera in their face. I might have to buy a camera and find some people I want to beat down and let the fun begin. PS.........using the word provocateur in a sentence that is completely incorrect doesn't make you right.
City councils are different then a church inviting a candidate to speak though. A city council is part of the government and are deciding city rules/policy. This case is just Kitzy just talking out of his ass to a bunch of potential voters. Chances are that actually happens (and did). I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but just because I might disagree, or even hate the person in charge (at the event) doesn't change their rights or the law. If your scenario was happening they could do it. That stuff happens, and just because the majority of us don't like it happening it doesn't mean it's still not allowed. No one is saying it's acceptable to physically assault someone. in fact, I think people ave commented the opposite. The discussion centered around whether or not the church had the right to ask the guy not to record/video the debate.
