Citizen Assaulted at Kitzhaber Event

[BGrantFan]

[video=youtube;sOkEjCTtWBM]

Assault aside, why is Kitzhaber campaigning in a church?

 

[Minstrel]

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.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't know where it's like where you guys live, but civics wasn't a requirement in my schooling. Middle school or high school. Even in AP US History we didn't get into things like "how a bill becomes law" or "what the heck is a primary?"

 

[Minstrel]

I don't know where it's like where you guys live, but civics wasn't a requirement in my schooling. Middle school or high school. Even in AP US History we didn't get into things like "how a bill becomes law" or "what the heck is a primary?"

We didn't have specific "Civics" courses where I went to school, but it was part of "Social Studies." Social studies was more than civics, but it mostly focused on US history and civics, so far as I can recall.

 

[BGrantFan]

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.

It was a "public event" held in a "public", "non-profit" and "tax-free" church. That was the point of the letter at the beginning of the video. I'm wondering why it isn't OK to film a candidate for the highest public office in our state at an announced public forum. If the guy was heckling Kitzhaber, I'd agree that it is not appropriate, but even then I'm not sure it isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Seems like an overreaction by one of the few dozen people in attendance. I'd think that Democrats would be all for getting their message out by any means available, considering the size of that audience.

 

[BGrantFan]

Civics fail.

Filming a pubic event in a public building (the church is considered a public building, hence the letter being shown at the beginning of the video) is protected under the First Amendment and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Civic fail, indeed. You may want to dust off that Social Studies book.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

I had a Civics course in junior high and highschool, I believe.

 

[HailBlazers]

I definitely would have stopped filming if it was causing as seen, But man he got smacked hard

 

[Minstrel]

It was a "public event" held in a "public", "non-profit" and "tax-free" church. That was the point of the letter at the beginning of the video. I'm wondering why it isn't OK to film a candidate for the highest public office in our state at an announced public forum.

Whether or not the public was invited, the church is not a government institution. It's a private institution. That means that first amendment rights are not applicable. The first amendment only protects you from government action.

 

[Minstrel]

Filming a pubic event in a public building (the church is considered a public building, hence the letter being shown at the beginning of the video) is protected under the First Amendment and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

A "public" building is one owned/run by the government. Anything owned/run by non-government entities is considered "private." A private institution offering an event to the public doesn't suddenly make it a government institution.

The first amendment only protects you from the government. No one else.

 

[BGrantFan]

Whether or not the public was invited, the church is not a government institution. It's a private institution. That means that first amendment rights are not applicable. The first amendment only protects you from government action.

Untrue. If the church opens its doors to the general public, and then invites a public forum, it is merely a public venue for the duration of that event. Hence, First Amendment rights apply.

You need to brush up on your "Civics".

Or, if you are arguing that the church was holding a "private" service, and that they had authority on that event, I'd like to see the letter from the church explaining this.

 

[Minstrel]

Untrue. If the church opens its doors to the general public, and then invites a public forum, it is merely a public venue for the duration of that event. Hence, First Amendment rights apply.

You need to brush up on your "Civics".

But you're wrong, from everything I've seen. The actual amendment speaks to nothing but the government.

If you're claiming that the Supreme Court has ruled that any place that invites the public is suddenly subject to the first amendment, you're going to have to link proof of that.

If you actually have such proof, I'll be happy to agree that I just received a brush-up on civics.

 

[MARIS61]

Every church I've ever been to, and I've been to all kinds, openly and fervently declares that ALL ARE WELCOME!

It's a given.

 

[julius]

Every church I've ever been to, and I've been to all kinds, openly and fervently declares that ALL ARE WELCOME!

It's a given.

All are welcome doesn't mean you can do whatever you please.

I believe Minstrel is right about the 'rights' issue (not whether or not this was right or wrong, whatever).

The 1st amendment itself says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". Which basically is saying that the Government won't make any laws restricting your rights (speech or religion). It doesn't say anything about what a church can do in their own building.

Although I might be wrong, I think most people assume that means they have the right to speak freely, wrongly associating the right spoken of in the amendment. Our government can't make a law prohibiting your speech/press/religion. But in my house or my building, I can.

 

[BGrantFan]

All are welcome doesn't mean you can do whatever you please.

I believe Minstrel is right about the 'rights' issue (not whether or not this was right or wrong, whatever).

The 1st amendment itself says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". Which basically is saying that the Government won't make any laws restricting your rights (speech or religion). It doesn't say anything about what a church can do in their own building.

Although I might be wrong, I think most people assume that means they have the right to speak freely, wrongly associating the right spoken of in the amendment. Our government can't make a law prohibiting your speech/press/religion. But in my house or my building, I can.

Look up the Supreme Court cases. Or don't, and continue to live in the "should". Minstrel challenged the videographer's claims of First Amendment protection. I would expect to see proof stating that it is illegal to film a public figure at an event open to the public.

 

[julius]

Look up the Supreme Court cases. Or don't, and continue to live in the "should". Minstrel challenged the videographer's claims of First Amendment protection. I would expect to see proof stating that it is illegal to film a public figure at an event open to the public.

Not that it's illegal but they can ask you to stop, or have you leave. It's why the Blazers can ask you to not have certain signs at Blazer games and have you leave the building.

 

[BGrantFan]

Not that it's illegal but they can ask you to stop, or have you leave. It's why the Blazers can ask you to not have certain signs at Blazer games and have you leave the building.

People buy tickets to Blazer games, and there are disclaimers on the tickets. Plus, the Blazers don't advertise public invitations for Q and A sessions with the public on a regular basis. The times that they do (draft parties, scrimmages) they allow people to film. I've seen the videos on YouTube.

Minstrel, tell my why this church can stop a citizen from filming a public figure after an invitation to the public.

I also find it funny that Democrats are supporting censorship practiced while a politician is campaigning at a church, but that is another story, I suppose.

 

[Minstrel]

Look up the Supreme Court cases. Or don't, and continue to live in the "should". Minstrel challenged the videographer's claims of First Amendment protection. I would expect to see proof stating that it is illegal to film a public figure at an event open to the public.

Haha. I love how you spin not having proof of this "Supreme Court case."

Here's my proof:

Text of first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And I'll spot you a real Supreme Court decision:

Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Please show where any of that (the actual amendment or the Supreme Court case modifying it) suggests that it applies to a church who invited the public in. Or don't.

 

[Natebishop3]

Haha. I love how you spin not having proof of this "Supreme Court case."

Here's my proof:

Text of first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And I'll spot you a real Supreme Court decision:

Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Please show where any of that (the actual amendment or the Supreme Court case modifying it) suggests that it applies to a church who invited the public in. Or don't.

You forgot to say...

Hi PapaG

 

[julius]

People buy tickets to Blazer games, and there are disclaimers on the tickets. Plus, the Blazers don't advertise public invitations for Q and A sessions with the public on a regular basis. The times that they do (draft parties, scrimmages) they allow people to film. I've seen the videos on YouTube.

so?
how do you knwo there weren't disclaimers for this event?

Minstrel, tell my why this church can stop a citizen from filming a public figure after an invitation to the public.

same reason why they can ask you to leave if you start swearing or disrupting the event. It's still a private building, even if it's "open to the public".

I also find it funny that Democrats are supporting censorship practiced while a politician is campaigning at a church, but that is another story, I suppose.

That doesn't really make the point you're trying to make, but whatever.

 

[BGrantFan]

Haha. I love how you spin not having proof of this "Supreme Court case."

Here's my proof:

Text of first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And I'll spot you a real Supreme Court decision:

Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Please show where any of that (the actual amendment or the Supreme Court case modifying it) suggests that it applies to a church who invited the public in. Or don't.

You mocked the person claiming First Amendment privilege. It's up to you to prove him wrong, isn't it?

 

[BGrantFan]

so?
how do you knwo there weren't disclaimers for this event?


same reason why they can ask you to leave if you start swearing or disrupting the event. It's still a private building, even if it's "open to the public".


That doesn't really make the point you're trying to make, but whatever.

None of what you typed is at all relevant to this debate. Just let Minstrel carry your water.

Hint - for your "disclaimer" line - the videographer showed the public invite to the Kitzhaber event.

 

[julius]

None of what you typed is at all relevant to this debate. Just let Minstrel carry your water.

Hint - for your "disclaimer" line - the videographer showed the public invite to the Kitzhaber event.

said the king of irrelevant comments.

You asked how they can ask you to stop filming, and I said the same way they can ask you to stop yelling or disrupting a meeting in the same scenario. It's a private building. it's the EXACT same reason why private fund raising events (for D's and R's) can kick someone out for filming or being disruptive. Because they're not the Government and don't have to abide by the 1st amendment in the same manner.

 

[BGrantFan]

said the king of irrelevant comments.

You asked how they can ask you to stop filming, and I said the same way they can ask you to stop yelling or disrupting a meeting in the same scenario. It's a private building. it's the EXACT same reason why private fund raising events (for D's and R's) can kick someone out for filming or being disruptive. Because they're not the Government and don't have to abide by the 1st amendment in the same manner.

A church that invites the public in for a public event is no longer a private building. Laws, of course, apply, but telling people that they cannot do legal things (such as film a candidate for public office at his own event) doesn't apply.

Again, let Minstrel carry your water.

You clearly are basiing you opinion on party/politics, and not on the applicable laws.

 

[julius]

A church that invites the public in for a public event is no longer a private building. Laws, of course, apply, but telling people that they cannot do legal things (such as film a candidate for public office at his own event) doesn't apply.

Again, let Minstrel carry your water.

So if the Rose Garden, a privately owned building, invites fans to the scrimmages, it's now a public building?

Based on what precedent? The one you pulled out of your ass?

It's a private building. Public means owned by the government, not "well, people got invited to it".

Yes they do apply. It's not a Government run building, it's not a Government run event, it is a church who invited him to speak there. They can ask people not to record if they so choose to (although whether or not they should have made it clearer form the start is a different issue, or how the 3rd gentleman handled it). That doesn't change anything, no matter how many times you say "Let Minstrel carry your water".

I know the church I went to as a kid didn't allow recording devices in the church during services (never understood why..both why they didn't allow it, or why anyone would want to record it). Even during their public events they held during the year, including a few political speakers.

 

[Minstrel]

You mocked the person claiming First Amendment privilege. It's up to you to prove him wrong, isn't it?

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.

 

[julius]

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.

You should really let barfo bring you water to drink.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

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

 

[Minstrel]

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

If you have a letter invite from them, apparently that makes the house party a government institution. Or something. X-treme civics here.

 

[Minstrel]

You should really let barfo bring you water to drink.

I save the barfo card for dire emergency.