Citizen Assaulted at Kitzhaber Event

[julius]

My replies are the ones in bold.

He works for KOIN?

He was asked to film it like KOIN was?

I missed that pronouncement.

 

[Minstrel]

Fair enough, but why attack me for staying on topic?

As we agreed, what I was talking about was on topic. It #3 on your list of approved topics! I didn't "attack" you, I simply pointed out that your response to me was irrelevant to what I said.

And I AM interested in your views of the bigger issues of:

1. Assault and battery on a journalist by agents of a government supported entity (the church) in order to conceal what was promised to them by a candidate for governor.

I am against assault and battery against anyone. The motives for not allowing the filming can be speculated upon. Hard to believe it was to conceal what the candidate said when a local news station was allowed to film it.

2. Why is a candidate for governor holding a "public forum" in a church?

Because churches are one type of community center. Community centers tend to be popular places for politicians to talk to the community.

Seems there might be some Constitutional issues in that suspicious act.

What Constitutional issue might that be? Politicians have spoken at churches for many years...I'm not aware of any Constitutional language that discourages or outlaws it.

 

[BGrantFan]

Or you temper tantrum when confronted by facts you don't like. I think we're on the same page.

Huh? Your "facts" don't apply to my thread, and you seem to be condoning assaulting people in a public forum when other people are allowed to film the proceedings.

 

[BGrantFan]

LOL

Minstrel is now in multiple response mode to a thread that he was already "victorious" in.

You're in the "should" again, my man.

 

[Minstrel]

Huh? Your "facts" don't apply to my thread

Sure they do. The apply to whether he had first amendment rights to film. He didn't, based on the actual first amendment.

and you seem to be condoning assaulting people in a public forum

Really? That's strange. It didn't seem that way to me at all.

 

[MARIS61]

As we agreed, what I was talking about was on topic. It #3 on your list of approved topics! I didn't "attack" you, I simply pointed out that your response to me was irrelevant to what I said.

No, you said it was irrelevant to the thread, which we agree it was not.

I am against assault and battery against anyone. The motives for not allowing the filming can be speculated upon. Hard to believe it was to conceal what the candidate said when a local news station was allowed to film it.

Not hard at all since I just searched KOIN's site for 10 minutes and found no mention of the event or the assault. It appears they deliberately did not report an assault at a candidate's forum that they were present and filming at. Seems like a certain church and a certain candidate have KOIN in their pocket.

Because churches are one type of community center. Community centers tend to be popular places for politicians to talk to the community.

Oops! Freedom of speech has been ruled protected at community centers and in fact anywhere the public is invited to move about freely such as shopping centers, parks, and government property that is not restricted from the public. Killed your own argument.

What Constitutional issue might that be? Politicians have spoken at churches for many years...I'm not aware of any Constitutional language that discourages or outlaws it.

Separation of church and state, possibly.

...

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel is now in multiple response mode

I'm enjoying this thread.

You're in the "should" again, my man.

Yo, man, that's deep.

I agree...we "should" actually pay attention to what the Bill of Rights actually says and what the Supreme Court actually said.

 

[BGrantFan]

Sure they do. The apply to whether he had first amendment rights to film. He didn't, based on the actual first amendment.

Umm ... no. That case is not at all applicable to this case. LOL


Are you a lawyer?

 

[MARIS61]

Sure they do. The apply to whether he had first amendment rights to film. He didn't, based on the actual first amendment.

Nowhere in the First Amendment is there any mention, hint, or wisp of smoke denying an American citizen or journalist from filming a candidate for office because he's speaking in a church.

I am unaware of any other Federal, State, County or City law that does so either, and he has not been charged with anything in relation to his doing so.

 

[Minstrel]

No, you said it was irrelevant to the thread, which we agree it was not.

I never said it was irrelevant to the thread. Just to the discussion I was having with BGrantFan, that you responded to.

Not hard at all since I just searched KOIN's site for 10 minutes and found no mention of the event or the assault. It appears they deliberately did not report an assault at a candidate's forum that they were present and filming at. Seems like a certain church and a certain candidate have KOIN in their pocket.

I'm sure another media source would be happy to get this scoop about KOIN being bought off. You should alert other news agencies. Unless they've ALL been bought off by Kitzhaber.

Oops! Freedom of speech has been ruled protected at community centers and in fact anywhere the public is invited to move about freely such as shopping centers, parks, and government property that is not restricted from the public. Killed your own argument.

How cunning of you! However, I was not using some technical term, I was using it to mean a place where community congregate. A Shriner's Club is also a community center in that sense, yet still very much a private entity that can enforce its own rules about what can and cannot be done.

Separation of church and state, possibly.

I'm afraid not. Separation of church and state regards how laws can be made. Not where politicians can speak.

 

[MARIS61]

I agree...we "should" actually pay attention to what the Bill of Rights actually says and what the Supreme Court actually said.

They both say you can't hit a man in the face for filming you, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE.

Are you paying attention now?

 

[Minstrel]

Umm ... no. That case is not at all applicable to this case. LOL

The "actual first amendment" is not at all applicable to whether he had first amendment rights? You're fascinating.

 

[Minstrel]

Nowhere in the First Amendment is there any mention, hint, or wisp of smoke denying an American citizen or journalist from filming a candidate for office because he's speaking in a church.

I am unaware of any other Federal, State, County or City law that does so either, and he has not been charged with anything in relation to his doing so.

Agreed. No one said he broke a law. Simply that he had no first amendment right to film there if the church authorities didn't want him to. The church has authority as to whether someone can film within the church.

 

[Minstrel]

They both say you can't hit a man in the face for filming you, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE.

That's nice. It's not relevant to what I said, though.

 

[MARIS61]

How cunning of you! However, I was not using some technical term, I was using it to mean a place where community congregate. A Shriner's Club is also a community center in that sense, yet still very much a private entity that can enforce its own rules about what can and cannot be done.

LOL. Whenever cornered, you always deny your own posts or re-invent the meaning of the words you use. Very smarmy of you.

I'm afraid not. Separation of church and state regards how laws can be made. Not where politicians can speak.

Where politicians can speak and whether they can limit or exclude anyone from being present is a very current issue, with private clubs and churches being the main hideouts for these cowardly candidates. Excluding me from a building whose tax debt is paid by me against my wishes and without a vote certainly applies to a possible violation of church and state as laws were made that transferred the church's tax assessment to my shoulders.

Taking it further, the laws that excuse churches from paying taxes clearly violate the separation of church and state.

 

[MARIS61]

That's nice. It's not relevant to what I said, though.

Most posts on this board fit that description, because you're avoiding the issue as usual.

It's certainly relevant to the video, the thread title, and the actions of the church thugs. Just because your mind wanders aimlessly doesn't mean those who don't follow are in error.

 

[MARIS61]

Agreed. No one said he broke a law. Simply that he had no first amendment right to film there if the church authorities didn't want him to. The church has authority as to whether someone can film within the church.

Because you say they do? Because they have hired muscle?

Link?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Because you say they do? Because they have hired muscle?

Link?

Because it's private property.. isn't it?

 

[Minstrel]

OL. Whenever cornered, you always deny your own posts or re-invent the meaning of the words you use. Very smarmy of you.

You didn't corner me, though. If you have a Supreme Court ruling that says that private property like a church is subject to the first amendment, feel free to produce it. If you do, I'll happily admit I was wrong. I made this offer to BGrantFan earlier and he moved on, since I'm guessing this decision doesn't actually exist.

Where politicians can speak and whether they can limit or exclude anyone from being present is a very current issue, with private clubs and churches being the main hideouts for these cowardly candidates. Excluding me from a building whose tax debt is paid by me against my wishes and without a vote certainly applies to a possible violation of church and state as laws were made that transferred the church's tax assessment to my shoulders.

Then you should sue and have the Supreme Court rule in your favour.

 

[Minstrel]

It's certainly relevant to the video, the thread title, and the actions of the church thugs.

Quite so, but since you responded directly to me, your response should actually be relevant to what I said.

 

[Minstrel]

Because you say they do?

No, because the first amendment clearly spells out that it, itself, is limited to government. A church is not part of the government.

 

[BGrantFan]

Minstrel's Meltdown. Good times.

Assault, or not an assault?

 

[Minstrel]

Minstrel is a Democrat who only believes in the Constitution when his party is harmed.

Thanks Minstrel. Your posts in this thread told me so! You're a fascist. Got it.

Minstrel's Meltdown. Good times.

It's always the guy who's calling other people "fascist" that's the reasonable one.

My rage knows no bounds! How dare I quote the Bill of Rights.

 

[MARIS61]

You didn't corner me, though. If you have a Supreme Court ruling that says that private property like a church is subject to the first amendment, feel free to produce it. If you do, I'll happily admit I was wrong. I made this offer to BGrantFan earlier and he moved on, since I'm guessing this decision doesn't actually exist.

Nor does that have anything to do with whether he can film there or not. But keep beating that horse if that's all you've got I guess.

The 5th Amendment does not say I can eat breakfast at whatever time I want, but I can anyway.

 

[MARIS61]

Then you should sue and have the Supreme Court rule in your favour.

Eventually someone with more time and money than I will do just that.

 

[MARIS61]

Quite so, but since you responded directly to me, your response should actually be relevant to what I said.

I responded to your off-topic jibe at me claiming I was off-topic in my response to your off-topic response...

My interest in this thread is waning fast...

 

[MARIS61]

No, because the first amendment clearly spells out that it, itself, is limited to government. A church is not part of the government.

Sure it is, as are we all.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln

 

[Minstrel]

Nor does that have anything to do with whether he can film there or not.

The default is that the owners of private property decide the rules on their property. You'll need to find some kind of law that creates an exception here. The first amendment isn't it, since that only applies to government action.

But keep beating that horse if that's all you've got I guess.

It's all I've been discussing or, really, care about in this thread. I don't care a bit about Kitzhaber or who wins the race.

Eventually someone with more time and money than I will do just that.

I'm sure it has been and will be challenged. Whether the Supreme Court will rule the way you'd like is to be determined.

I responded to your off-topic jibe at me claiming I was off-topic in my response to your off-topic response...

Actually, you responded to one of my posts to BGrantFan. I simply pointed out that your response to me didn't have anything to do with what I said.

 

[Minstrel]

Sure it is, as are we all.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Abraham Lincoln

In that case, as a government worker, I pay your wages with my taxes. As your boss, I'm going to have to insist that you take a drug test.

 

[MARIS61]

The default is that the owners of private property decide the rules on their property.

In your dreams maybe.

Nearly all laws prohibiting anything apply on private property as well as public property.

Murder, rape, outdoor burning of trash, growing certain crops, sodomy (in some states), being too loud, parking your RV out front (in some neighborhoods), letting your grass grow over 8" high, installing a non-State-Certified wood stove...