quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Personally, I see it as both. 1st amendment AND being deprived of property without due process. Sleazy as hell no matter who does it and IMO illegal as hell too.

Yup.

Firm

I am not so sure about the illegal part.

There were signs posted that there was to be NO private video taping. The two individuals were video tapping anyways. Their camera-things (one was a phone, as I recall) were returned after the meeting.

The concern was apparently private individuals being you tubed and such without their consent. News organizations have to get consent.

Aylee, news organizations don't get permission before taping private citizens. When they film a fair, an accident scene, etc, do you see them getting releases from everyone? If a person is in public, they can assume they might be recorded. The courts have upheld video monitoring repeatedly by just that ruling. A politician is, by definition, a public person. Noone begged them to run for office. He decided to put his face out there.
As for confiscation of phones, etc. I don't care if they do return it later. It is illegal confiscation of personal property without due process.

I don't know. When I read an article about this a couple three days ago, I had thought that the situation was similar to those people in the audience of that guy that talks to the dead. There are to be no pictures or video, and they can confiscate and remove such.

A Boston lawyer suing the city and police officers who arrested him for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common won a victory today when a federal appeals court said the officers could not claim "qualified immunity" because they were performing their job when they arrested him under a state law that bars audio recordings without the consent of both parties.

In its ruling, which lets Simon Glik continue his lawsuit, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said the way Glik was arrested and his phone seized under a state wiretapping law violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights:

    The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw." ...

   Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Don't you know taking pictures at a broadway show isn't allowed? Geez, next you'll want a bootleg copy of the show just to save $1000 on tickets...

Fargle, I think the Secret Service was talking about taking pictures outside on the street and in the lobby. I might be wrong tho.