Townhall Meeting Censorship

[ksholder]

That is rather unfortunate, as generally, I think Steve does a decent job as a congressman, and is better than most other options in SW Ohio.

I even got a nice letter from him, and a flag flown over the capitol, when I graduate boot camp (a high school friend was an aide for him)

OP, I would be very interested in the response you get from his office, if you get one.

I plan to post Steve's response here if/when I get one.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[mcp1810]

Regardless of who was paying for the venue, that fact is quite irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the Critter involved is on the public payroll. His every word is an official utterance unprotected by property rights of any sort. It is all in the public domain and the public has a right to record and transmit it. Particularly so as Congress has chosen to not go into an official recess during this present summer vacation period.

So you are saying it would be allright for us to put cameras in the White House residence and record everything the President ever says, even to his family. And any communications to or from the President including the White House phone and visitor logs and all e-mails should be in the public domain.

That he was visiting with constituents only proves that he was acting in his official capacity as a public servant. Hence, to do what he did was reprehensible, and probably not lawful. The LEO /security staff might not have known better, but they were in the wrong as well.

So you say there is no distinction between campaigning and the performance of official duties? So when the President is playing golf or having $1,000 a plate dinners with campaign contributors he is acting in his official capacity?

Oh, as to the comparison with exclusive rights to video in a courtroom, that is indeed a special situation comparable to Congress allowing only C_span in. It is necessary for decorum of the institution.

Congress? Decorum? That is an odd combination if I ever heard one. But you are acknowledging that restraints can legitimately but put on the presence of cameras.

While the Critter might feel that following a similar policy is necessary for the decorum of his meetings, not an unreasonable idea, there has to be something beyond his personal feelings to back up his decision. So, maybe if Congress has passed a law giving such a privilege to members he might be in the right. Or perhaps if state law allows the same, he might be in the right. However, I've not heard of any such thing. And extending the practice which takes place in the confines of a courtroom or the halls of Congress to some other venue seems a rather questionable notion, legally, constitutionally, except to those with rather authoritarian mind sets.

The only justification I can see for the policy would revolve around whether or not allowing the public to video record is actually (factually) disruptive of the meeting. But then, there are a host of laws from disorderly conduct to unlawful disruption of a public meeting which might apply. Banning recording in anticipation that someone might be disruptive is a bit of overkill.

So there is nothing wrong with banning cameras as long as you get to decide when to ban them?
As far as possible charges, as the parties involved were notified that cameras were not permited I would guess they could be charged with trespassing (like you and I if we carry past a 30.06 sign). But then if the prosecutors wanted to play hard ball they could make the argument that what since they were trespassing they were not part of the intended audience, hence not a "party" to the communications under Ohio or federal law. They could then prosecute them under ORC 2933.52 or 18 U.S.C. 2510.
I am curious if there is any case law on the subject. I will have to do some reading on it.

[mcp1810]

After some further reading the Ohio Attorney General issued an opinion in 1988 saying that video taping of public meetings could not be prohibited but could be restricted. The Court of Appeals of Ohio also stated in December 2001 that reasonable restrictions were allowed. Ohio Revised Code 2933.51 includes the legal definition of "Journalist" in regard to state wire tapping laws.
So the question would be if prohibiting video recording by persons other than those meeting the definition of journalist would be considered unreasonable.

[Hopyard]

After some further reading the Ohio Attorney General issued an opinion in 1988 saying that video taping of public meetings could not be prohibited but could be restricted. The Court of Appeals of Ohio also stated in December 2001 that reasonable restrictions were allowed. Ohio Revised Code 2933.51 includes the legal definition of "Journalist" in regard to state wire tapping laws.
So the question would be if prohibiting video recording by persons other than those meeting the definition of journalist would be considered unreasonable.

And to that I say a resounding no doubt about it; very unreasonable. Your example and implied comparison in the previous post regarding hypothesized recording of the prez within the WH is preposterous.

Your suggestion that perhaps what the critter was doing could be construed as campaigning, rather than official duty, is also preposterous especially given that Congress never adjourned for the summer recess.


There is plenty of decorum in Congress. Why do you think the debates go by the clock? Why do you think members must ask others if they would yield? Why do you think The Chair gavels and members speak up to request that they get unanimous consent to revise and extend remarks? And so on. And I think you are smart enough to understand that Congress controls what goes on within its walls as do the various judicial appointees control what goes on within their courtrooms. That is quite different in all respects from a meeting open to the public, held in a public building or a street corner.

From post 33 --"Ohio Revised Code 2933.51 includes the legal definition of "Journalist" in regard to state wire tapping laws. " Is that the best you can do? Seriously there is no licensing of journalists in this country. That would violate the 1st. Who is to say that someone with a recorder is not a journalist?

I don't know and don't really care what case law might exist regarding this particular Ohio statute, but it certainly skates the boundaries if it doesn't cross them on what is permissible. Therefore, I think that statute probably doesn't hold as much weight in this instance we are discussing as simple ordinary stuff like laws against "disrupting a meeting" and how use of cameras or recording devices might in fact do just that. [IT wasn't all that long ago that the use of flash bulbs might well have been considered disruptive and there could have been legitimate concern about photographers present in a meeting room if the flash interfered with the speaker's ability to read notes.]

Still, the critter was talking on our dime, on the clock, and he 'ain't got no excuse.' He, you, others can rationalize till the cows come home. His constituents will be the final judges as per K's initial post, they aren't likely to be feeling kindly about this.

[mcp1810]

And to that I say a resounding no doubt about it; very unreasonable. Your example and implied comparison in the previous post regarding hypothesized recording of the prez within the WH is preposterous.

So are you now saying this was incorrect?

Regardless of who was paying for the venue, that fact is quite irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the Critter involved is on the public payroll. His every word is an official utterance unprotected by property rights of any sort. It is all in the public domain and the public has a right to record and transmit it.

Or is it your contention that the President is not on the public payroll? Or do the rules just not apply to him like they do to everyone else?

Your suggestion that perhaps what the critter was doing could be construed as campaigning, rather than official duty, is also preposterous especially given that Congress never adjourned for the summer recess.

So it is your position that until Congress adjourns it's members can not do anything that is not an official duty? How does that work for other politicians? A Presdient or a Governor adjourns how? When do they become not the President or Governor and become campaigning politicians? Can you cite the law that says members of Congress can not campaign unless Congress is adjourned? I looked through the federal elections laws as post by the F.E.C. dated 2008 and I can't find it.

There is plenty of decorum in Congress. Why do you think the debates go by the clock? Why do you think members must ask others if they would yield? Why do you think The Chair gavels and members speak up to request that they get unanimous consent to revise and extend remarks? And so on. And I think you are smart enough to understand that Congress controls what goes on within its walls as do the various judicial appointees control what goes on within their courtrooms. That is quite different in all respects from a meeting open to the public, held in a public building or a street corner.

And precisely how would a person holding a camcorder in the visitors gallery be any more disruptive there than in a town hall meeting? And if a member of Congress rented a facility that a meeting is held in why would they not have the minimally the same property rights as other public officials in public buildings that they are not paying for?

From post 33 --"Ohio Revised Code 2933.51 includes the legal definition of "Journalist" in regard to state wire tapping laws. " Is that the best you can do? Seriously there is no licensing of journalists in this country. That would violate the 1st. Who is to say that someone with a recorder is not a journalist?

How about the elected officials that passed the law and the courts that upheld it? Tell you what, go to D.C. walk up to the White House entrance gate with an i-phone and tell them you are a journalist and want to sit in on the next press conference. Let us know how that works out for you.

I don't know and don't really care what case law might exist regarding this particular Ohio statute, but it certainly skates the boundaries if it doesn't cross them on what is permissible. Therefore, I think that statute probably doesn't hold as much weight in this instance we are discussing as simple ordinary stuff like laws against "disrupting a meeting" and how use of cameras or recording devices might in fact do just that. [IT wasn't all that long ago that the use of flash bulbs might well have been considered disruptive and there could have been legitimate concern about photographers present in a meeting room if the flash interfered with the speaker's ability to read notes.]

Still, the critter was talking on our dime, on the clock, and he 'ain't got no excuse.' He, you, others can rationalize till the cows come home. His constituents will be the final judges as per K's initial post, they aren't likely to be feeling kindly about this.

So you are saying it is wrong simply because you say it is and that you really don't what the laws are and what the courts might have said about it?
So much for the rule of law.

[mcp1810]

So, maybe if Congress has passed a law giving such a privilege to members he might be in the right. Or perhaps if state law allows the same, he might be in the right. However, I've not heard of any such thing.

From the Ohio Attorney Generals office, excerpted from the 2011 Sunshine Laws Manual.......

The Ohio Open Meetings Act

Chapter One: “Public Body” and “Meeting” Defined

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine • Auditor of State Dave Yost • Ohio Sunshine Laws 2011: An Open Government Resource Manual Page 78



I. Chapter One: “Public Body” and “Meeting” Defined

Only a “public body” is required to comply with the Ohio Open Meetings Act and conduct its business in open “meetings.” A “meeting” is defined as any prearranged gathering of a public body by a majority of its members to discuss public business.
We begin by defining which governmental entities are, and arenot, “public bodies” under the Act.

And from Chapter Three....

Courts have found that the Ohio Open Meetings Act does not apply to individual public officials (asopposed to public bodies) or to meetings held by individual officials. Moreover, if an individual public official creates a group solely pursuant to his or her executive authority or as a delegation ofthat authority, the Ohio Open Meetings Act probably does not apply to the group’s gatherings.

So there you have that state law you wanted.

[mlr1m]

Putting the issue of legality of his actions aside. I doubt I could support my elected official if he were to attempt to control speech in this manner.

Michael

[ksholder]

From the Ohio Attorney Generals office, excerpted from the 2011 Sunshine Laws Manual....... And from Chapter Three.... So there you have that state law you wanted.

Putting the issue of legality of his actions aside. I doubt I could support my elected official if he were to attempt to control speech in this manner.

Thanks guys. While it may have been legal for Chabot to do what he did, as per mcp1810's research, it clearly was not wise as I suspect that mlr1m is not in the minority in his thinking.

Congress does a lot of things that are legal but not wise. I seem to remember a certain Congreswoman who stated we need to vote in ObamaCare to see what it says. That's right, enact a law without taking the time to discern what it says and the likely consequences of enacting it. Anybody wonder why Congress has <15% approval rating?

FWIW, I was not opposed to rethinking how we fund health care. I was, and still am, opposed to enacting laws without understanding what they say and how they will likely play out.

[mcp1810]

For me it would all depend on what the format of the meeting was.
If it were a question and answer session then I would agree that not allowing some of the audience members to speak is unacceptable. On the other hand, if this were an event where he was basically issuing a statement to his constituents saying what he has done and updating them on the status of pending items of interest I have no problem with it.

[mlr1m]

For me it would all depend on what the format of the meeting was.
If it were a question and answer session then I would agree that not allowing some of the audience members to speak is unacceptable. On the other hand, if this were an event where he was basically issuing a statement to his constituents saying what he has done and updating them on the status of pending items of interest I have no problem with it.

What I took from the original post was that it was the recording of the event and not questions that was prohibited. I would have no problems with prohibiting questions at a speech. I do have a problem with not permitting someone from recording the speech.

Michael

[ksholder]

For me it would all depend on what the format of the meeting was.
If it were a question and answer session then I would agree that not allowing some of the audience members to speak is unacceptable. On the other hand, if this were an event where he was basically issuing a statement to his constituents saying what he has done and updating them on the status of pending items of interest I have no problem with it.

What I took from the original post was that it was the recording of the event and not questions that was prohibited. I would have no problems with prohibiting questions at a speech. I do have a problem with not permitting someone from recording the speech.

What I had a problem with, and I think most people did, is the prohibition on recording the event and the somewhat heavy handed tactics used to remove the cameras and phones from participants. Again, this may be perfectly legal, but it does not reflect the transparency in government and willingness to stand by his statements that I expect from my Congressman.

Of course, what makes it all the more interesting is that the stated purpose was to protect constituents that wanted to ask questions so that their question would not be recorded. At the same time, as I understand it, questions were not allowed in the meeting. Kinda makes you scratch your head.

[mcp1810]

Well, the officer did first ask the guy to put it away. And I suspect the inaudible part when he first spoke to the lady was a polite request also. It didn't get heavy handed until they refused his request to obey the rules and put them away. While it may seem heavy handed, if I were attending such a function I would be there to listen to my representative, not to a lady in the audience who wants to get into a long drawn out debate with the police officer.
I think his actions were entirely appropriate to resolve the issue and not let it escalate any further and disrupt the event.

[Hopyard]

So are you now saying this was incorrect?

Or is it your contention that the President is not on the public payroll? Or do the rules just not apply to him like they do to everyone else?

No, your position is unsupportable and preposterous. You seem unable to discern differences in situations and how these affect things. A public meeting held by a public official is quite different from a meeting at which state secrets are being discussed. That should take care of your WH comparison nicely.

So it is your position that until Congress adjourns it's members can not do anything that is not an official duty? How does that work for other politicians? A President or a Governor adjourns how? When do they become not the President or Governor and become campaigning politicians? Can you cite the law that says members of Congress can not campaign unless Congress is adjourned? I looked through the federal elections laws as post by the F.E.C. dated 2008 and I can't find it.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth :- Where exactly do you think I said anything of the sort?

And precisely how would a person holding a camcorder in the visitors gallery be any more disruptive there than in a town hall meeting?

Again, sir, you seem unable to understand differences in situation and how these affect and are affected by and interact with laws. You know, the basic stuff like apply the facts and the law." The facts include the situation.
Congress as a body gets to decide permissible conduct within its gallery.

And if a member of Congress rented a facility that a meeting is held in why would they not have the minimally the same property rights as other public officials in public buildings that they are not paying for?

We aren't talking about physical property rights. What I said is that their utterances (their words) are in the public domain. They are not in the same situation as the entertainer who doesn't want his jokes recorded and re-published without authorization. As to your question, why? Because that happens to be the law.

How about the elected officials that passed the law and the courts that upheld it? Tell you what, go to D.C. walk up to the White House entrance gate with an i-phone and tell them you are a journalist and want to sit in on the next press conference. Let us know how that works out for you.

Again, a striking example of not recognizing how facts (situations) interact with law.

So you are saying it is wrong simply because you say it is and that you really don't what the laws are and what the courts might have said about it?
So much for the rule of law.

No, I'm saying you are speaking up because you want to argue even when there is nothing to argue about. The man held a public meeting. His public utterances are in the public domain. He does not own them. He does have a right to keep his meeting from being disrupted but it is quite a stretch to suppose that recording what he says on an iPhone is in any way disruptive of a meeting. And per the Ohio law you cited, are you now wanting to argue that we have licensed
journalists or that we should?

I just want to give you the opportunity to answer the last one (about what constitutes a journalist) so we get a full picture of your thinking.

[mcp1810]

No, your position is unsupportable and preposterous. You seem unable to discern differences in situations and how these affect things. A public meeting held by a public official is quite different from a meeting at which state secrets are being discussed. That should take care of your WH comparison nicely.

And if you bothered to read the state law (which you stated in a previous post could justify what happened) you would see that by law this was not a "public meeting."
You said if state law allowed it he may be in the right. State law does allow it. So who is just looking to argue an unsupportable position?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth :- Where exactly do you think I said anything of the sort? Again, your view is preposterous.

How about your post quoted above where you said that it was preposterous to think he could be campaigning because Congress never adjourned for the summer recess?
So now are you saying that it does not matter if they never adjourned for the summer recess? And I am still waiting for you to provide anything that would legally prevent this from being a campaign activity. But since you have not come up with anything I will just assume that you can't find anything either.

Again, sir, you seem unable to understand differences in situation and how these affect and are affected by and interact with laws. You know, the basic stuff like apply the facts and the law." The facts include, the situation.

And the law includes the law. Which in this case you are chosing to ignore.

Congress as a body gets to decide permissible conduct within its gallery.

And the Congressman in this case gets to decide what is permissible conduct in his audience. ( That Ohio law thing again.)

We aren't talking about physical property rights.

I most certainly am. As the tennant of that property he has the same rights to say who may come in and what they may do as if it were his apartment or office. (again that Ohio law thing )

What I said is that their utterances (their words) are in the public domain. They are not in the same situation as the entertainer who doesn't want his jokes recorded and re-published without authorization.

And here we go back to that Open meetings law that says by law this is not a public meeting where people have the right to record it.

As to your question, why? Because that happens to be the law.

Yeah what you said. It is the law.

Again, a striking inability to understand how facts (situations) interact with law.

You said it! Tell you what. Show me which law your facts are interacting with.

No, I'm saying you are speaking up because you want to argue even when there is nothing to argue about. The man held a public meeting. His public utterances are in the public domain. He does not own them. He does have a right to keep his meeting from being disrupted but it is quite a stretch to suppose that recording what he says on an iPhone is in any way disruptive of a meeting. And per the Ohio law you cited, are you now wanting to argue that we have licensed
journalists or that we should?

You are right there is nothing to argue about. Ohio law is clear on the issue. By law what he held was not a legally defined public meeting and therefore he was within his rights to prohibit the recording of what was said there. He made rules on what was permissible conduct in the room and the people who chose not to comply with those rules had no right to be in the room.

I just want to give you the opportunity to answer the last one (about what constitutes a journalist) so we get a full picture of the extent to which authoritarianism runs in your blood.

As I did not write the Ohio law my feelings on the matter are irrelevant.
But since you can't seem to look it up for yourself

(M) “Journalist” means a person engaged in, connected with, or employed by, any news media, including a newspaper, magazine, press association, news agency, or wire service, a radio or television station, or a similar media, for the purpose of gathering, processing, transmitting, compiling, editing, or disseminating news for the general public.

But why concern yourself with that? It's just another part of a law that might not be convenient.

[ksholder]

Well, Steve Chabot did indeed respond and teh text of that response follows. Basically, his response is - we have always done this, it has just now become a problem and we will change our ways. I think the public reaction is a very strong indicator of the degree to which the public is fed up with Washington and its ways. Anyway, here is his response.

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thank you for contacting me about my recent town hall meeting. I always appreciate having the benefit of your views.

I have always tried to be accessible to my constituents to hear their views on federal issues. It helps me better represent the views and opinions of Ohio’s First District.

While, I have been holding town hall meetings for 15 years, several years ago we had a number of complaints from attendees who felt their privacy was being violated by people bringing in video cameras. Their concern was that the things they’d bring up were sensitive – health issues, disputes with the IRS, etc., and they didn’t want other people taping them. After first getting advice from the U.S. House of Representatives Sergeant at Arms, we responded by clearly displaying signs at our town hall meetings which said “Video Recording Devices are Prohibited.”

We had never had a problem until the most recent town hall meeting, when two people who ignored the signs were asked by a Cincinnati police officer to stop. When they refused, he took the two cameras and returned them at the end of the meeting. There were many who were upset by these actions. Due to these concerns, we have modified the policy for future events, allowing personal cameras in these meetings, but meeting privately at the conclusion of the event with those who preferred their matters be kept private.

As always, I welcome and encourage my constituents to contact me and I will continue to make myself available to them. Information regarding future town hall meetings can be found on my website.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact me about this issue. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Sincerely,

Steve Chabot