Court Rules Republicans Who Confiscate Cameras At Town Halls Are Violating 1st Amendment

[UrbScotty]

According to a recent Federal Appeals court ruling, Republican members of Congress who confiscate citizens’ cell phones or cameras and do not allow filming at town halls are violating their constituents First Amendment rights.

One of the ways that unpopular House Republicans have been trying to dodge the wrath of their angry constituents during the August recess is to not allow filming at their town halls. Last week, Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio directed on duty police officers to confiscate the cameras of citizens who tried to film his responses at a recent town hall. Chabot justified this behavior as necessary for the protection of his constituents, but a Federal Court ruling on Friday makes it clear that the Republicans who engaging in this behavior are violating the First Amendment rights of their constituents.

The case brought before the court involved a man in Boston who was arrested for filming the police with his cell phone while they were making a separate arrest of a young man in public. The man who did the filming with his cell phone filed suit alleging that his First and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The district court ruled in favor of the person who filmed the arrest, and the state appealed.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/1st-amendment-town-halls

[indurancevile]

1. good.

[cstanleytech]

2. Why doesnt anyone remember that the republicans

(and the majority on the SCOTUS) dont believe in the first amendment..........except for a corporation.

[trueblue2007]

3. way 2 go court!!!! yes their freedom of speech was being trampled on. that is what GOP's do!!!

[pacalo]

4. The best line of the ruling...

...the Court has noted, “(f)reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘(i)t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’”

[ZombieHorde]

5. I am pleasantly surprised. nt

[Syrinx]

6. so is it still okay for Democrats to confiscate cameras?

:hide:

[Gman]

7. What kind of a question is that?

[Syrinx]

12. a logical one

I doubt the ruling specified that only republicans are banned from confiscating cameras.

[jtrockville]

9. Of course not. But (so far as I know) only Republicans have done it.

NOTE: The ruling does specify "in a public place", so I expect "town halls" will be held in private locations.

[Javaman]

8. Does this also apply to cops out in public?

Meaning, it seems as if there is a whole sale war against anyone video taping cops beating people in public or just video taping cops period.

while I know I'm within my rights to do so, it appears I need more than the US Constitution to protect myself these days.

[gratuitous]

10. The question, though, is what is the remedy?

Will there be prior restraint against confiscating citizen property, or will government officials continue to confiscate away and pay damages, if any are awarded, later? Much later. And who will pay those damages? The government official who is presumed to know better, or the governing authority, which is probably making do with reduced revenue as it is?

Because if government officials aren't personally put on the hook for breaking the law, it seems this becomes yet another back-door avenue to starve government of funds to do its job.

[butterfly77]

11. Kicked&Recommended...