CITIZEN BEATEN FOR FILMING SPEAKING EVENT

[BabylonHoruv]

Aside from the part that quotes him a describing himself as one, is there any corroborative evidence that he is a professional journalist?

I DON'T CATCH THAT

          anywhere during the tape(?) - but whether or not this person is a journalist becomes irrelevant. it's not that big of an event, actually quite small as you can see from the footage. people just sit on their hands during the episode(!) everyone in the room had to see the violence taking place. and kitzhaber doesn't even pause?

OVERALL

          i'm kinda blown away that all the online jabber covering this has not resulted in some print!

BUT, THEN AGAIN,

          the 'oregonian' recently ran an article dismissing "9/11 was an inside job" theories as a view held only by uninformed and radical muslims. because that's the news.

I meant in the part of the article you quoted.

The video also appears on another Breitbart site under the headline: "Dems Gone Wild: Citizen Assaulted for Filming John Kitzhaber Event." The byline on the piece – although it's not clear whether he was one of the cameramen – is that of James O'Keefe, a 25-year-old right-wing operative who describes himself as an "investigative journalist and filmmaker."

I agree that it doesn't matter in the sense that SOMEONE should have done something. But as a future attorney, I like to see if people's claims would hold up in a court of law. So... unless he is a professional journalist, I don't think his First Amendment claim will.

I'm pretty sure amateur journalists receive the same protections.

Seems my use of the word "professional" was not what I was driving at. If he is actually doing journalism with the footage, then yes it's protected, regardless of whether or not he is a journalist by trade. From a legal point of view though, he needs more than his word to back his claim, which is why I asked if there was any thing else aside from his own statement. But it would appear that he does have ties to some news media, so he is well within his first amendment rights, yes.

Considering that posting the video on youtube is publishing it it really actually doesn't take anything more than his word to back up his claim.

[Phox]

Maybe, but on the other hand, he might have only published it because he was attacked. I'm sure that's the route an opposing attorney would go with it. Of course, that should be total bullshit and thrown out, bu that sets a bad precedent if you do. Sure, he was going there with the gun to shoot his wife in the face, but he stopped a robbery across the street because he glanced out the window and saw it as he was drawing it. Eh, the nuances of the legal system suck, ya know.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Why would you tape a political speaking event, except to publish the video somewhere?

And if he wasn't planning to publish it anywhere, why would anyone have cared?

Your argument is specious.

[Doktor Howl]

Maybe, but on the other hand, he might have only published it because he was attacked. I'm sure that's the route an opposing attorney would go with it. Of course, that should be total bullshit and thrown out, bu that sets a bad precedent if you do. Sure, he was going there with the gun to shoot his wife in the face, but he stopped a robbery across the street because he glanced out the window and saw it as he was drawing it. Eh, the nuances of the legal system suck, ya know.

What the fuck does that even mean?  Why the fuck would he go film it if he wasn't going to publish it?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism

Definition of JOURNALISM
1
a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2
a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine b : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

Protected.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Maybe, but on the other hand, he might have only published it because he was attacked. I'm sure that's the route an opposing attorney would go with it. Of course, that should be total bullshit and thrown out, bu that sets a bad precedent if you do. Sure, he was going there with the gun to shoot his wife in the face, but he stopped a robbery across the street because he glanced out the window and saw it as he was drawing it. Eh, the nuances of the legal system suck, ya know.

What the fuck does that even mean?  Why the fuck would he go film it if he wasn't going to publish it?

GREAT MINDS!

[Doktor Howl]

From a legal point of view though, he needs more than his word to back his claim, which is why I asked if there was any thing else aside from his own statement.

POST.

FUCKING.

LINK.

[Doktor Howl]

Maybe, but on the other hand, he might have only published it because he was attacked. I'm sure that's the route an opposing attorney would go with it. Of course, that should be total bullshit and thrown out, bu that sets a bad precedent if you do. Sure, he was going there with the gun to shoot his wife in the face, but he stopped a robbery across the street because he glanced out the window and saw it as he was drawing it. Eh, the nuances of the legal system suck, ya know.

What the fuck does that even mean?  Why the fuck would he go film it if he wasn't going to publish it?

GREAT MINDS!

Apparently, he was supposed to prove he was a journalist (not required) while he was being stomped.

Phox has some very unusual ideas concerning rights.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Phox, in case you were interested in having some clue what you're talking about instead of just dispensing an opinion from a vacuum, here:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/topic.aspx?topic=blogging

"As the courts have confirmed, what makes journalism journalism is not the format but the content," says Opsahl. "Where news is gathered for dissemination to the public, it is journalism — regardless of whether it is printed on paper or distributed through the Internet."

A few more helpful articles:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=23303
http://www.salemnews.com/opinion/x1671032478/Inside-the-First-Amendment-Why-licensing-journalists-is-a-bad-idea
http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/07/are-documentary-filmmakers-journalists/
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=101116

[Doktor Howl]

Now you've gone and broken her statist little heart.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Now you've gone and broken her statist little heart.

[Phox]

Phox, in case you were interested in having some clue what you're talking about instead of just dispensing an opinion from a vacuum, here:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/topic.aspx?topic=blogging

"As the courts have confirmed, what makes journalism journalism is not the format but the content," says Opsahl. "Where news is gathered for dissemination to the public, it is journalism — regardless of whether it is printed on paper or distributed through the Internet."

A few more helpful articles:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=23303
http://www.salemnews.com/opinion/x1671032478/Inside-the-First-Amendment-Why-licensing-journalists-is-a-bad-idea
http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/07/are-documentary-filmmakers-journalists/
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reportsitem.aspx?id=101116

Well, damn. I was completely wrong. I have no idea why I thought what I did. Good to know.

Now you've gone and broken her statist little heart.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Mind if I ask what you meant when you said "as a future lawyer"? Surely you are not a law student.

[Phox]

Mind if I ask what you meant when you said "as a future lawyer"? Surely you are not a law student.

Nope, I plan on going to law school when I finish my undergrad work.

[Doktor Howl]

Mind if I ask what you meant when you said "as a future lawyer"? Surely you are not a law student.

Nope, I plan on going to law school when I finish my undergrad work.

How does that lend you authority on legal issues right now?