Citizen Assaulted at Kitzhaber Event

[BGrantFan]

The forum Your Voice, Your Vote, Your Opportunity is sponsored by the Urban League of Portland, African American Alliance and KOIN News 6.

Hmmm ... looks like KOIN 6 may be involved in a lawsuit.

 

[BGrantFan]

If my neighbor has an open house party I can go there and they can't tell me to leave? AWESOME!

Stick to hoops, youngster.

 

[BGrantFan]

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.

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.

 

[Minstrel]

Actually, it's up to you. And you can't.

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.

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.

IN A HOUSE OF WORSHIP? THATS IRONIC

 

[BengalDuck]

wait, churches are now public property?

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

Minstrel is victorious!

 

[jlprk]

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.

 

[jlprk]

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.

 

[bodyman5001]

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.

 

[julius]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[julius]

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.

Here is the key part of the article linked, mostly for BGrantFan.

Charles Hinkle, one of the state's prominent First Amendment attorneys, said the activist had no constitutional right to film at the event since it was on private property. Even though the public was invited to attend, organizers could put restrictions on that attendance, he said, such as prohibiting filming.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[bodyman5001]

I know for a fact that the church had the right to ASK them not to film. I want to know if he has the right to tell them to stick it up their ass or not.

I think that he should.

I know it is about Kitzy talking about his ass to potential voters. I want to know why someone would feel it acceptable to host a public even and advertise it as such and then demand that people not film it? Doesn't sound too public to me.

I should be dictator, and if I were I would pull the tax exemption from that "church" if they didn't publicly apologize for what they have done.

Maybe they have, I hope so.

 

[bodyman5001]

Here is the key part of the article linked, mostly for BGrantFan.



Game. Set. Match.

Didn't know the game was about what Charles Hinkle thinks. Weird. One would think that Charles Hinkle would be able to provide a Supreme Court case that directly relates to this situation. There must be right?

 

[julius]

Didn't know the game was about what Charles Hinkle thinks. Weird. One would think that Charles Hinkle would be able to provide a Supreme Court case that directly relates to this situation. There must be right?

yeah, because a 1st amendment lawyer obviously knows less about where 1st amendment rights can be enforced than you or bgrantfan do.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Driving the camera back into the guy's face was clearly inappropriate. They should have just physically ejected him from the premises.

It's interesting how people seem to think invoking "first amendment rights" means they're allowed to do anything, anywhere. Even on forums like this, people say "How dare you edit me? I have first amendment rights!"

Civics fail.

For the most part I agree. When they asked people to stop filming, then filming should stop. To me, that's civics as well. He was asked politely several times. That said, there was no justifiable reason to punch him. They should have simply had him removed. Both sides had a failed civics.

 

[bodyman5001]

yeah, because a 1st amendment lawyer obviously knows less about where 1st amendment rights can be enforced than you or bgrantfan do.

Your arrogance knows no limits huh? Your sarcasm needs to be reeled in just a bit there bud.

If another 1st amendment lawyer says a different thing is Charles Hinkle still right?

I asked if this exact issue had been decided by the Supreme Court. You link that Charles Hinkle says that it is ok. I want a Supreme Court ruling that says so, not what some lawyer says.

If what one lawyer thinks is what matters, why do they even have the Supreme Court?

GAME, SET, MATCH.

 

[bodyman5001]

For the most part I agree. When they asked people to stop filming, then filming should stop. To me, that's civics as well. He was asked politely several times. That said, there was no justifiable reason to punch him. They should have simply had him removed. Both sides had a failed civics.

This won't matter for long, soon we will have ways of filming that will make it impossible to tell that you are being filmed.

Kinda like that cell phone device in The Dark Knight where they could use all the phones together to track you.

 

[julius]

Your arrogance knows no limits huh? Your sarcasm needs to be reeled in just a bit there bud.

If another 1st amendment lawyer says a different thing is Charles Hinkle still right?

Find one.

I asked if this exact issue had been decided by the Supreme Court. You link that Charles Hinkle says that it is ok. I want a Supreme Court ruling that says so, not what some lawyer says.

Did you read the whole thread? Minstrel (I think it was him, might've been barfo) quoted a SC case that pretty much said what Hinkle said, what Minstrel said and what I said.

If what one lawyer thinks is what matters, why do they even have the Supreme Court?

GAME, SET, MATCH.

You must not understand what the SC's purpose is, if you think you made a point there.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

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.

No one would deny the fact democrats seek to deny rights to people who oppose them. This has been well documented in the last few years (black panthers intimidating voters in Philly, ACORN adding thousands of fraudulent votes for lefties,...) . But I disagree that it is freedom of speech to film at an event when asked not to do so. Be the event at a church building or not. Try filming at a supreme court hearing (public building) and see how fast one's fanny ends up in jail. Ans that's not violating freedom of speech.

The guy had a right to film, but I think was compelled to stop when the organizers asked people to stop filming.

 

[julius]

No one would deny the fact democrats seek to deny rights to people who oppose them. This has been well documented in the last few years (black panthers intimidating voters in Philly, ACORN adding thousands of fraudulent votes for lefties,...) . But I disagree that it is freedom of speech to film at an event when asked not to do so. Be the event at a church building or not. Try filming at a supreme court hearing (public building) and see how fast one's fanny ends up in jail. Ans that's not violating freedom of speech.

The guy had a right to film, but I think was compelled to stop when the organizers asked people to stop filming.

I think what you meant to say is that there is no doubt that both of our political parties try to deny the rights of the people who oppose them.

Btw, the "Black Panther" thing? That was 2 or 3 loony guys who stood outside of a voting place and intimidated no one.

 

[bodyman5001]

Find one.


Did you read the whole thread? Minstrel (I think it was him, might've been barfo) quoted a SC case that pretty much said what Hinkle said, what Minstrel said and what I said.


You must not understand what the SC's purpose is, if you think you made a point there.

I got up too early to try and reason with you. If the case you are referring to is Gitlow vs New York or whatever it was that Minstrel posted that doesn't say shit about what I am asking.

The Supreme Court is there for judicial review. If they decide that it is ok to abort you after you are 22 years out of the womb, that is the law of this country. I think maybe you are the one who doesn't understand what the Supreme Court is there for my friend.

 

[bodyman5001]

I think what you meant to say is that there is no doubt that both of our political parties try to deny the rights of the people who oppose them.

Btw, the "Black Panther" thing? That was 2 or 3 loony guys who stood outside of a voting place and intimidated no one.

Alright, I should stop laughing before I type anything else. You have no fucking clue if they intimidated anyone.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

btw, the "Black Panther" thing? That was 2 or 3 loony guys who stood outside of a voting place and intimidated no one.

I don't know, the US Dept of Justice has a different view, according to some testimony last week. I may be naive, but I think they did more investigating than you.

 

[bodyman5001]

I don't know, the US Dept of Justice has a different view, according to some testimony last week. I may be naive, but I think they did more investigating than you.

If someone drove by that polling place and saw those guys standing out there and just drove home and didn't vote, would that be intimidation?

I would think so. Nobody on Earth can know if that happened or not, not even the gubmint. Not unless they were that person. That person would have to tell us that it happened. That they haven't wouldn't mean that it didn't.

 

[julius]

I got up too early to try and reason with you. If the case you are referring to is Gitlow vs New York or whatever it was that Minstrel posted that doesn't say shit about what I am asking.
blah blah blah

So far there has been a couple examples given where it's perfectly allowable by the church to limit the recording of the events. You seem stuck on wanting to bring up the SC to prove your point. Ok, then prove it. Find a case where it's transferable. Find a lawyer who says that the guy's 1st amendment rights were violated and that the church didn't have the right to ask the guy not to record the debate. Find something that shows that the church became a "public" place because they invited people there, despite being a private entity which 1st amendment rights aren't protected under.

You want the expert to provide a case, I want the non expert to provide anything remotely related to the discussion.

 

[julius]

I don't know, the US Dept of Justice has a different view, according to some testimony last week. I may be naive, but I think they did more investigating than you.

I sit corrected. Although I don't think that's really a democrat tactic, that is a loony tunes nutjob tactic (much like if the Klan intimidated black voters in the south, it's not the R party that did it, but a bunch of pathetic excuses for human beings doing it).

Do you agree, though, that both parties (and/or people who do it for their party affiliation) deny rights to opposing views?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Edited narrative & video by the victim. It would be interesting to see & listen to the entire video unedited.

Also the guy is an idiot and IMO only came there looking for the confrontation he found himself in.

Him repeating "First Amendment" was funny. Clearly he does not understand what he is talking about.

"At some point the moderator asked those who were filming to stop.

“We’re not to be doing filming. If you would please desist now (and) respect the authority of this church,” she said.

But the man, who at this time has said through a mutual friend that he’s not ready to talk on camera, continued to film claiming his First Amendment rights. He was asked again to stop and argued it was a public event with public officials speaking.

Ultimately, he said he was assaulted not once but twice. One punch was captured on the man’s own camera. The other was captured on another audience member’s camera.

Charles Hinkle, a constitutional lawyer of nearly 40 years, said the First Amendment is often misunderstood and this incident is a teachable moment.

He said the bottom line is the church or the people putting on the forum had the right to say that no filming was allowed.

“There is a very fundamental principle at stake here. The First Amendment is a restriction on what government can do. It’s not a restriction on what private parties can do,” Hinkle said. “The church and the sponsors of that program had an absolute right to prevent anyone from filming it.”

He said it doesn’t matter what kind of event it was. The bottom line is it was private property so the owners can set the rules as far as filming."

 

[BengalDuck]

heres the problem with internet debates --- no one ever admits theyre wrong

so instead of papag admitting he was wrong, which he wouldnt do, i think he should just be banned

 

[Minstrel]

One would think that Charles Hinkle would be able to provide a Supreme Court case that directly relates to this situation. There must be right?

Why would there be? The amendment is about government action and the church is not government. By default, there are no first amendment protections from the church's actions.

The Supreme Court would only rule about exceptional cases, ones that expanded or restricted the protection. They wouldn't make a ruling that essentially said "Yes, the first amendment works the way it was written."

The Bill of Rights is there to protect citizens from the government, not from other private citizens. Laws protecting you from your fellow citizens are by and large made by Congress (federal and state/local).

 

[julius]

heres the problem with internet debates --- no one ever admits theyre wrong

so instead of papag admitting he was wrong, which he wouldnt do, i think he should just be banned

Isn't saying "I sit corrected" admitting that i was wrong?