Townhall Meeting Censorship

There are 2 videos and an article in the attached link. The second video provides more info. This highlights my congressman and I have e-mailed him asking for a full explanation. Interested in all y'all's thoughts. I am not looking for a political thread, but comments on whether you believe, if this was reported correctly, the public official has acted in a constitutional or unconstitutional manner.

Seems to me that he was censoring recording a public event held in a public place. I don't see how anybody could have an expectation of privacy, especially since the media were allowed to film the event.

» Cops Confiscate Cameras at Ohio Congressman’s Town Hall Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

No one has an expectation privacy when participating in a public forum. This guy and his staff are fools. If you are afraid of the public, get out of public life. Seems simple enough.

Your Congressman is a world-class jerk if he was behind the 'no recording' edict. So much for "transparency in government." If the commercial (i.e., profit-generating) press is allowed to record, then private citizens should enjoy the same right. Protest LOUDLY and let us know what the response is.

there is a catch 22 in his argument. the stated reson was to "prtect the ID of his constiuents" then why where there 2 TV cameras in the building also that were not taken?
the man and the woman need to sue the congressman, the police officer and the officer's department.

it is hard to get more blantent then this.
use the money you will win to fund a recall of the goof in office.

Some in government believe that the first amendment only covers the recognized media. Not just ordinary individuals. This possibly is the case with this Congressman.

Michael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gasmitty

Your Congressman is a world-class jerk if he was behind the 'no recording' edict. So much for "transparency in government." If the commercial (i.e., profit-generating) press is allowed to record, then private citizens should enjoy the same right. Protest LOUDLY and let us know what the response is.

---

I have already protested via e-mail asking for his version. Understanding that the published accounts could be slanted, I want his take, but based on other articles I have read, Chabot has a very long and steep hill to climb to regain my trust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mlr1m

Some in government believe that the first amendment only covers the recognized media. Not just ordinary individuals. This possibly is the case with this Congressman?

---

Not likely. Chabot has been an OK congressman for a very long time, which, of course means he is also part of the problem we now are facing. He has always been conservative and I have never had an issue with him before. This issue, however, if it should play out that it has been properly reported, is a deal killer for my support for him. I just don't know who we can run to replace him.

It's the REASON most States have "open meeting " laws.... LOL ... the numbskull. So, thing cannot go on out of the public eye and behind closed doors, nor without citizen scrutiny and input.

He didn't want to get on youtube, and did the one thing to get him on more forums ... LOL .

I'm afraid that many of our public officials --both parties, and at all levels-- forget that the word "official" is preceded by the word "public."

While it is not uncommon for dance and theater troupes to prohibit recording of their presentations, these are private enterprises attempting to protect their intellectual property.

When a government official writes or speaks, they do not retain copyright on their words. When they do a public presentation they not only have no expectation of privacy but they have no ownership of their performance-- (e.g., copyright).

So, stupid is what was done. He is reaping the reward in the form of very bad publicity.

There are ways in which Congress Critters can speak with their constituents in more private and privileged settings; e.g., get someone to allow you to hold a reception in their home and invite the participants (usually for a fee, --i.e., campaign donation). Those critters too dumb to not know the difference probably are too dumb to be making laws for the rest of us.

(BTW, I've no clue which party your guy is in and it makes no difference. Bad judgment is bad judgment.)

All he has to do is sell tickets to the event, and he can have his way. If I were Chabot, I'd sell tickets for a nominal price, say 5 bucks, and donate it everything to a local charity. Then he would have every right to prohibit cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SIXTO

All he has to do is sell tickets to the event, and he can have his way. If I were Chabot, I'd sell tickets for a nominal price, say 5 bucks, and donate it everything to a local charity. Then he would have every right to prohibit cameras.

---

True, but selling access would be equally offensive to the public as censoring it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I'm afraid that many of our public officials --both parties, and at all levels-- forget that the word "official" is preceded by the word "public."

While it is not uncommon for dance and theater troupes to prohibit recording of their presentations, these are private enterprises attempting to protect their intellectual property.

When a government official writes or speaks, they do not retain copyright on their words. When they do a public presentation they not only have no expectation of privacy but they have no ownership of their performance-- (e.g., copyright).

So, stupid is what was done. He is reaping the reward in the form of very bad publicity.

There are ways in which Congress Critters can speak with their constituents in more private and privileged settings; e.g., get someone to allow you to hold a reception in their home and invite the participants (usually for a fee, --i.e., campaign donation). Those critters too dumb to not know the difference probably are too dumb to be making laws for the rest of us.

(BTW, I've no clue which party your guy is in and it makes no difference. Bad judgment is bad judgment.)

---

Hop - I agree with your post.

FWIW - Chabot is a Republican and has, for many years, been a pretty good representative serving the needs of his constituents regardless of their political bent. He had a 2 year haitus in 2008-2010 but he won his job back in 2010. I suspect he will loose it permanently in 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ksholder

True, but selling access would be equally offensive to the public as censoring it.

---

Good point.

This is the problem with career politicians at every level. It gets st easy and routine to bend the rules and laws us lowly citizens have to live by and then they eventually loose total sight of the fact that they are there to serve us and have to obey the same rules of law. Not sure what the fix should be beyond fixed limits but that would only work for higher up politicians as it's too easy to just move from one area of local government to another at the lower levels. Besides how many of us would truly want to go into that sort of work? Hmmmmm maybe a opportunity for the 9.2%+ currently unemployed?

K, at least your guy holds public meetings. I think ours is afraid to be seen in public.

-
Why didn't the LE agency in charge of security there consider whether the 'no cameras' edict was legal before proceding with these confiscations? Under what law were their actions supported?