Citizen Assaulted at Kitzhaber Event

[MARIS61]

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.

Oops! 5th Amendment violation.

Besides, I work strictly on commission.

 

[Minstrel]

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...

That doesn't contradict what I said. The default is that the owner makes the rules on their own property. The exceptions, like for murder, rape, etc, are prohibited by laws. So, unless you can find a law prohibiting citizens from banning video recording on their own property, the church was well within its rights. Just as you are within your rights to tell your guests not to smoke on your property, if you choose to, or not to urinate on your couch.

Maybe you can find such a law. If so, please feel free to cite it. That law, however, is not the first amendment.

 

[jlprk]

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.

But the provocateurs wouldn't have filmed covertly, even if were possible. Their purpose was not to film the speaking event. Their purpose was to be obnoxious, create an incident between themselves and anyone who didn't like their behavior, film it, and pretend to be innocent victims. As I said, this is a new technique of Republicans, but it's not getting you any votes because everyone sees through it.

 

[MARIS61]

That doesn't contradict what I said. The default is that the owner makes the rules on their own property. The exceptions, like for murder, rape, etc, are prohibited by laws. So, unless you can find a law prohibiting citizens from banning video recording on their own property, the church was well within its rights. Just as you are within your rights to tell your guests not to smoke on your property, if you choose to, or not to urinate on your couch.

There is no such default. If you have some sort of proof of one please post it.

Yes, you can tell people not to smoke on your property. You cannot legally stop them from doing it, if they light up against your wishes. Same goes for anything else they want to do, including film you. Your only legal recourse is to have the police arrest them for trespassing, if they are.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/definat-pastors-irs/story?id=11726610

 

[BGrantFan]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/definat-pastors-irs/story?id=11726610

I have no problem with churches becoming political entities so long as they lose their tax-exempt status. Pay taxes like any other business, and then they can support whichever candidates they fancy. Don't pay taxes? Then stay out of politics and stop hosting pseudo-public forums.

 

[MARIS61]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/definat-pastors-irs/story?id=11726610

Obviously, it's time this country started treating churches for what they are. Nothing more than profit-making businesses and political mouthpieces.

Time they paid their taxes just like Real Americans.

 

[MikeDC]

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.

Well, it's sort of absurd to ask for an official holding of something so blatantly obvious as this. But sure...

Here's a whole string of Supreme Court decisions, which basically operate on the principle that:

"the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." In striking a balance, the Court concluded that the free-speech rights of the individual were paramount over the property rights asserted by the company.

In this case, the private party was explicitly hosting a public forum. If anything, the fact it was a non-profit religious organization puts more requirements on the host, not less. In those cases, the host must ensure open and non-partisan access to the event for the public.

Filming a public event is consistent with that, and throwing out one man who was filming while not throwing out another man who was filming is not.

And just as a general proposition, this seems a pretty absurd thing to argue about or object to. Really, it's the most mockable thing in this thread I've seen, if it weren't symptomatic of so much that's wrong. If folks want politics to get better, they could start be extending the golden rule when it comes to basic discourse.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, it's sort of absurd to ask for an official holding of something so blatantly obvious as this. But sure...

Here's a whole string of Supreme Court decisions, which basically operate on the principle that:


In this case, the private party was explicitly hosting a public forum. If anything, the fact it was a non-profit religious organization puts more requirements on the host, not less. In those cases, the host must ensure open and non-partisan access to the event for the public.

Filming a public event is consistent with that, and throwing out one man who was filming while not throwing out another man who was filming is not.

And just as a general proposition, this seems a pretty absurd thing to argue about or object to. Really, it's the most mockable thing in this thread I've seen, if it weren't symptomatic of so much that's wrong. If folks want politics to get better, they could start be extending the golden rule when it comes to basic discourse.

I'm afraid you're confused about my position. I never said that there was no law or ruling that required the church to allow filming. In fact, I said in a previous post that such a law may exist.

What I said is that the first amendment is not that law. The IRS policy you linked was not an expansion of the first amendment, it's a part of federal tax law. (And whether it applies to filming is not clear at all, but not worth arguing since it's not relevant to my position.)

And you neglected this from your first link about the Supreme Court holdings:

Since the Court's decision in Pruneyard, few states have recognized any state constitutional right to free expression on private property. The scope of these decisions is narrow. State constitutional provisions have been held to apply in only two private-property settings: shopping malls and non-public universities. Moreover, the state courts have limited the situations in which these protections are applicable to only a few, such as those involving political speech.

So that is no evidence at all that an individual has the "first amendment right" to film in a church, if asked not to.

 

[BGrantFan]

I'm afraid you're confused about my position. I never said that there was no law or ruling that required the church to allow filming. In fact, I said in a previous post that such a law may exist.

What I said is that the first amendment is not that law. The IRS policy you linked was not an expansion of the first amendment, it's a part of federal tax law. (And whether it applies to filming is not clear at all, but not worth arguing since it's not relevant to my position.)

And you neglected this from your first link about the Supreme Court holdings:



So that is no evidence at all that an individual has the "first amendment right" to film in a church, if asked not to.

Civics Fail. The First Amendment is why these laws exist.

/thread

 

[jlprk]

Interesting, Mike. So unless event organizers predefine their event as nonpublic, the organizers lose all control over audience behavior as long as it breaks no law (i.e. disruption is okay).

Beginning with Reagan, Republican presidential candidates have made almost all their campaign speeches only to screened audiences full of Republicans. Democratic candidates have shunned this closed approach and remained open to anyone who wants in.

Do Democrats have the legal right to get into Republican events, or can Republicans prevent it by just saying that it's not open to the public?

 

[BGrantFan]

Interesting, Mike. So unless event organizers predefine their event as nonpublic, the organizers lose all control over audience behavior as long as it breaks no law (i.e. disruption is okay).

Beginning with Reagan, Republican presidential candidates have made almost all their campaign speeches only to screened audiences full of Republicans. Democratic candidates have shunned this closed approach and remained open to anyone who wants in.

Do Democrats have the legal right to get into Republican events, or can Republicans prevent it by just saying that it's not open to the public?

Dumbest post in this thread. Strawman much?

 

[Minstrel]

Civics Fail. The First Amendment is why these laws exist.

/thread

Federal tax laws about how politicians can campaign are based on the first amendment? Whatever you say, chief.

 

[BGrantFan]

Federal tax laws about how politicians can campaign are based on the first amendment? Whatever you say, chief.

Yes, they are. Move the goalposts more in this thread. Whatever it takes to defend a Democrat assaulting a guy when it is his right to film!

 

[Minstrel]

Yes, they are.

How do you figure?

Move the goalposts more in this thread.

The goal posts remain right where they started. The guy in the video claimed a first amendment right to film, which I pointed out was wrong. No one has even shown he had a right to film there, let alone a first amendment right to do so.

 

[jlprk]

Dumbest post in this thread. Strawman much?

Huh? We now know that it's okay to disrupt a public meeting as long as you stay legal. Why aren't Republicans celebrating?

"the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." In striking a balance, the Court concluded that the free-speech rights of the individual were paramount over the property rights asserted by the company.

 

[BGrantFan]

How do you figure?



The goal posts remain right where they started. The guy in the video claimed a first amendment right to film, which I pointed out was wrong. No one has even shown he had a right to film there, let alone a first amendment right to do so.

Um, OK. You win! This must be why church leaders are trying to change the law, so they can not be considered public property at public events.

 

[BGrantFan]

Huh? We now know that it's okay to disrupt a public meeting as long as you stay legal. Why aren't Republicans celebrating?

How did the videographer "disrupt" the public meeting? Other people were obviously filming the event. Why were they allowed to film this pubic event?

Democrats love free speech. LOL

Notice that you made this a thread about partisan politics?

 

[jlprk]

Now that Democrats know that we can crash pre-screened Republican events, we'll be showing up with our camcorders and loud horns.

It's okay to go to any public event with the purpose to disrupt, using the technique of acting obnoxious, just as long as you stay legal.

We'll make your political party into a REAL party! I'll bring the pin the tail on the donkey game.

 

[jlprk]

This is great! I can use my obnoxiousness skills. I've been in the closet all my life, and now the true me can come out.

 

[BGrantFan]

This is great! I can use my obnoxiousness skills. I've been in the closet all my life, and now the true me can come out.

How is filming an event being "obnoxious". Plus, heckling happens at many political events. It didn't happen at this one, though.

Plus, I don't believe that you've never disrupted a public event. Your entire m.o. is to disrupt things (I like that, btw).

 

[jlprk]

Are you accusing me of being an outside agitator? I'll have the FBI on you for that agitprop.

Like you say, how is my filming a Republican event being obnoxious? I'll quote you to them, especially if they've designated one cameraman, like this event did. I'll hog the spotlight by blocking spectators' views with my camera and large straw hat with a long pink feather. There's no law against blocking people's views.

 

[BGrantFan]

Are you accusing me of being an outside agitator? I'll have the FBI on you for that agitprop.

Like you say, how is my filming a Republican event being obnoxious? I'll quote you to them, especially if they've designated one cameraman, like this event did. I'll hog the spotlight by blocking spectators' views with my camera and large straw hat with a long pink feather. There's no law against blocking people's views.

\\

I agree. Go for it. It's your right, so long as it is a forum open to the public. I'll even join you at a Republican "public" event to disrupt it, should you extend me an invitation. That is my belief as an independent/Libertarian.

 

[jlprk]

Sorry, your pink feather isn't long enough. So anyway, if Mike's excerpt gets out, it will cause a revolution in behavior at meetings. Assuming it's accurate. Those who run events have no control over the audience. Just stay legal. For example, in the Jay Leno audience while he's interviewing his friend Schwarzenbeggar in front of a million people, it's legal to yell at your friend, "Hey Luigi, Jay sucks tonight!"

Assuming it's accurate.

 

[MikeDC]

I'm afraid you're confused about my position. I never said that there was no law or ruling that required the church to allow filming. In fact, I said in a previous post that such a law may exist.

I'm afraid your position is confused... the stream of court cases I noted clearly state their terms of First Amendment grounds. Go read them all, come back here, and admit your failure.

What I said is that the first amendment is not that law. The IRS policy you linked was not an expansion of the first amendment, it's a part of federal tax law. (And whether it applies to filming is not clear at all, but not worth arguing since it's not relevant to my position.)

And you neglected this from your first link about the Supreme Court holdings:

So that is no evidence at all that an individual has the "first amendment right" to film in a church, if asked not to.

Not at all. What that says is effectively, the US Constitutional first amendment protection is so obvious in this case that state constitutional protections (which may be more - but not less- expansive) have rarely been an issue. "Moreover, the state courts have limited the situations in which these protections are applicable to only a few, such as those involving political speech.".

That is, not only is the political process so important that it's subject to First Amendment protection safeguarding it even on private property (when that property has been opened to public forum status), states have additional powers to protect such speech under their own constitutions.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

From this thread I have learned that I don't care about civics or politics.

 

[MikeDC]

Interesting, Mike. So unless event organizers predefine their event as nonpublic, the organizers lose all control over audience behavior as long as it breaks no law (i.e. disruption is okay).

No, they lose some control. It does generally fall upon the "breaks no law" lines, but these laws are almost universally interpreted to mean "disruption is not ok". The line is always a gray one, of course. Did you catch the Jon Stewart show thing the other day about the union that was (hiring temporary workers at minimum wage with no benefits) picketing at Wal-Mart to protest the fact that the company hires workers at minimum wage with no benefits.

Even if they conduct their protest (which is not at all of Wal-Mart's chosing) somewhat on Wal-Mart's property (say on a private, store owned sidewalk in front of the parking lot), they are not disrupting the store's operation. If, say, they stood in front of the driveway into the parking lot, so folks couldn't get in to shop, that'd be illegal disruption.

Beginning with Reagan, Republican presidential candidates have made almost all their campaign speeches only to screened audiences full of Republicans. Democratic candidates have shunned this closed approach and remained open to anyone who wants in.

Do Democrats have the legal right to get into Republican events, or can Republicans prevent it by just saying that it's not open to the public?

So... you're a Republican? Seriously, I know everyone's got their strongly held views, but it'd be good to take a step back from them. Yes, I suppose one could technically make closed events. I know in practice both parties sometimes do this, and sometimes do not. For example, back when I lived in Virginia, a Republican senator (George Allen) got himself in trouble for slandering a Democratic party worker who was there filming Allen's talk. Same basic principle; public forum, so opponents can show up and film.

 

[Minstrel]

Not at all. What that says is effectively, the US Constitutional first amendment protection is so obvious in this case that state constitutional protections (which may be more - but not less- expansive) have rarely been an issue. "Moreover, the state courts have limited the situations in which these protections are applicable to only a few, such as those involving political speech.".

That is, not only is the political process so important that it's subject to First Amendment protection safeguarding it even on private property (when that property has been opened to public forum status), states have additional powers to protect such speech under their own constitutions.

That isn't what it seems to effectively say. It seems to say that not only are the exceptions for first amendment rights applying beyond government extremely few (precisely two, of the thousands of types of private entities), even in those two exceptions, the scope is very narrow: "only a few, such as those involving political speech."

 

[MARIS61]

Federal tax laws about how politicians can campaign are based on the first amendment? Whatever you say, chief.

Once again you misrepresent the facts.

The laws regulate non-profits (churches), not politicians or campaigns.

The Federal Tax Laws linked define how non-profit organizations (churches...) are or are not allowed to participate in campaigns.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is releasing this fact sheet to provide information to help section 501(c)(3) organizations stay in compliance with the federal tax law.
...
The IRS is providing this fact sheet to help ensure that charities have enough advance notice of the types of problems that have occurred, the legal strictures against engaging in political activities and how to avoid these problems.
...
Churches should also see Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations.

Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

During election campaigns, many churches, universities, hospitals, social service providers, and other section 501(c)(3) organizations are uncertain about the extent to which they can discuss issues of importance in the campaigns or interact with candidates for public office. They are also uncertain about the role they can play in encouraging citizens to register and vote. This fact sheet is intended to help organizations understand what they can and cannot do when an election campaign is under way.

The Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Those section 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations are subject to additional restrictions that are not described in this fact sheet.

What is Political Campaign Intervention?

Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention. Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate for public office will also violate the prohibition. Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity. Although section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in some activities to promote voter registration, encourage voter participation, and provide voter education, they will violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention if they engage in an activity that favors or opposes any candidate for public office. Certain activities will require an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether they result in political campaign intervention. [/QUOTE]

 

[MARIS61]

How do you figure?



The goal posts remain right where they started. The guy in the video claimed a first amendment right to film, which I pointed out was wrong. No one has even shown he had a right to film there, let alone a first amendment right to do so.

As human beings we are all born with the right to do anything we damn well please, as long as we can defend ourselves and not give ground.

We only lose rights, and only then by not defending them adequately.

So there is never a reason or need to prove one has certain rights. Only a need for oppressors to prove they can take it away.