Townhall Meeting Censorship

This is a discussion on Townhall Meeting Censorship within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; 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 ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: Townhall Meeting Censorship

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,929

    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!
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array digitalexplr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jefferson City, MO
    Posts
    914
    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.
    Tzadik likes this.
    NRA Life Member

  4. #3
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,389
    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.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array tbrenke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,006
    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.
    Daddy Warcrimes likes this.
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -1792, James Madison
    There are always too many Democratic, Republican and never enough U.S. congressmen.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    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
    Naufragia likes this.

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,929
    Quote Originally Posted by gasmitty View Post
    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 View Post
    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 Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,731
    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 don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,658
    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.)
    Tzadik likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #9
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,775
    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.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,929
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    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.
    Tzadik and Naufragia like this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  12. #11
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  13. #12
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,775
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    True, but selling access would be equally offensive to the public as censoring it.
    Good point.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array Maverickx50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LaCrosse Wisconsin
    Posts
    778
    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?
    I carry to protect myself and my loved ones from the BG's. Not to solve societies problems. That said: if more carried the deterrent would only have a positive overall effect on those problems.

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,658
    K, at least your guy holds public meetings. I think ours is afraid to be seen in public.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  16. #15
    Distinguished Member Array ArkhmAsylm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    1,373
    -
    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?
    Hopyard likes this.
    "Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

ohio revised code 2933.52 video taping of police officers

Click on a term to search for related topics.