http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOkEjCTtWBM&feature=related
so this guy is filming a speaking event by one of oregon's candidates for governor. love to see your responses to this.
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 08, 2010, 03:28:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOkEjCTtWBM&feature=related
so this guy is filming a speaking event by one of oregon's candidates for governor. love to see your responses to this.
Which part of his first amendment rights is he invoking? Freedom of press?
If so, I think you have to register as a member of the press. I could be wrong about that, but I'm not sure if it's constitutionally protected.
THat said, since it is a public event, he should be allowed to film, and should press charges against the guy for assault.
It's a public event on private property. I think he should have been allowed to film, but I'm not sure his 1st Amendment claim would stand up in court.
it's fucked up that the right to document reality is evaporating.
but isn't that why they make hidden cameras?
THIS THING
really does become a mess. the paper here has yet to print anything about it, not even in the editorials. and people are talking about it. there's so much that's f-d up about the incident itself. why this guy asserts his "first amendment rights" i'm not exactly certain, but the church ought to have called the proper authorities. i don't think it'd be legal for a bouncer to strike at a customer at a club or bar, in a similar situation.
I AM AMUSED
by this chick's (not suspicious) article about the incident http://www.examiner.com/women-s-issues-in-portland-me/citizen-assaulted-for-filming-john-kitzhaber-is-a-big-fat-lie
i really like how she calls the person with the camera an "activist" (in portland, that's equivalent to 'terrorist'). i wonder what her article would be about if that same activist were a woman, at a predominately white attended event. oh wait, then it would already be on national news.
THE LEFT
http://www.tsweekly.com/6387-right-wingers-stage-a-video-ambush-in-portland.html
has hilariously taken the position that's it's o.k. because the person filming is associated with (regardless that this fact was unknown at the time of the event) a right wing publisher.
Flash forward to Thursday, when Kitzhaber was speaking at Emmanuel Temple Church in Portland. Two as-yet-unidentified people – described by Oregonian political blogger Jeff Mapes as "video activists" – showed up with cameras, and a couple of campaign volunteers asked one of the cameramen to stop. He refused, insisting it was his "First Amendment right" to record the speech. Eventually one volunteer, James Posey, got exasperated and ended up pushing the camera into the guy's face.
The next day the video appeared on Breitbart.tv with the title: "Citizen Assaulted for Filming John Kitzhaber Event." At the end of it, the cameraman is shown with a small cut on the bridge of his nose.
(Check out the comments below the video and you'll see the fact that the cameraman was white and the guy who hit him was black was not lost on Breitbart's audience.)
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."
so, next time you get "exasperated" with someone, it's now o.k. to strike at them. ?
HERE
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2010/09/video_of_altercation_at_kitzha/2664/comments.html
are responses posted at "oregon live" - an online news journal.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 04:17:25 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 08, 2010, 03:28:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOkEjCTtWBM&feature=related
so this guy is filming a speaking event by one of oregon's candidates for governor. love to see your responses to this.
Which part of his first amendment rights is he invoking? Freedom of press?
If so, I think you have to register as a member of the press. I could be wrong about that, but I'm not sure if it's constitutionally protected.
THat said, since it is a public event, he should be allowed to film, and should press charges against the guy for assault.
O.K.
so it seems from everything i've read, that this 'filmer' guy is a journalist of
some sort, but no, he does not make that clear during the time of this incident. that we can tell from the video, anyway.
Aside from the part that quotes him a describing himself as one, is there any corroborative evidence that he is a professional journalist?
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:11:20 AM
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.
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 08, 2010, 05:29:00 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:11:20 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:38:11 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 08, 2010, 05:29:00 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:11:20 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Personally I think the idea that one has to be a "professional journalist" in order to document events is a little insulting. Who gets to decide who is "professional" enough? I think there is a legitimate restriction on his 1st Amendment rights in this case, since it is private property, even if the public was invited. Generally speaking, when you invite the public, it means the public is free to attend the event, but not necessarily free to redistribute whatever they receive there. In a privately owned establishment, house rules trump the Constitution (to a point) because nobody is
forcing the guy to attend in the first place.
But mainly, yeah, to say only the "professional press" has a right to Freedom of the Press is disgusting, imho.
Quote from: vexati0n on October 08, 2010, 05:52:32 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:38:11 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 08, 2010, 05:29:00 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:11:20 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Personally I think the idea that one has to be a "professional journalist" in order to document events is a little insulting. Who gets to decide who is "professional" enough? I think there is a legitimate restriction on his 1st Amendment rights in this case, since it is private property, even if the public was invited. Generally speaking, when you invite the public, it means the public is free to attend the event, but not necessarily free to redistribute whatever they receive there. In a privately owned establishment, house rules trump the Constitution (to a point) because nobody is forcing the guy to attend in the first place.
But mainly, yeah, to say only the "professional press" has a right to Freedom of the Press is disgusting, imho.
Completely agree. But, on the other hand, there is the possibility that he doesn't/didn't want the footage for the purpose of
actual journalism either, but might have used it for partisan mudslinging ("professional" journalists do that all the time, but that doesn't make it ok, it just means the court will probably uphold their claim to free press). Second, it's violation of privacy to film anything without permission, public event or not, because it is private property. And of course, the courts get to decide who freedom of press applies to. Stupid? Yes, but then, I don't think the writers of the first amendment had to worry about every one and their cousin having access to a medium which allowed them to make worldwide publications in seconds, either.
ALL GREAT POINTS,
but still. struck at and then punched with the camera. way out of line.
no print.
the liberal bloggers are basically blaming the victim and justifying the guy hitting him.
HAS THE CHURCH
made a public apology for this? hell no!
HOW DIFFERENT
would media reaction be if this occurred at a 'tea bagger' event? image & soundbite blitzkrieg? probably guaranteed. especially in portland. there'd be a riot outside that church and hundreds of crusty punks on tall bikes outside the trade center building downtown(yaawwn).
AND KITZHABER?
keeping his political hands clean and hasn't said a word. if that guy had been filming from his bicycle when this happened, our current (shitfuck) mayor would be holding press conferences and organizing benefits
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 08, 2010, 06:40:14 AM
ALL GREAT POINTS,
but still. struck at and then punched with the camera. way out of line.
no print.
the liberal bloggers are basically blaming the victim and justifying the guy hitting him.
HAS THE CHURCH
made a public apology for this? hell no!
HOW DIFFERENT
would media reaction be if this occurred at a 'tea bagger' event? image & soundbite blitzkrieg? probably guaranteed. especially in portland. there'd be a riot outside that church and hundreds of crusty punks on tall bikes outside the trade center building downtown(yaawwn).
AND KITZHABER?
keeping his political hands clean and hasn't said a word. if that guy had been filming from his bicycle when this happened, our current (shitfuck) mayor would be holding press conferences and organizing benefits
The silence of the media is rather disturbing, and there is no justification for the violence. To be honest, political bloggers of any stripe are generally idiotic sheep that follow the faux ideologies that their masters tell them to, so their attempts at justification are neither surprising nor relevant. There is so much crap wrong with the whole scenario that it's not even worth discussing. It's goddamn ridiculous. But, what can be done? Video's up. Bloggers are talking about it, at least. If the story doesn't get picked up in the media (and likely won't at this point), then it's another journalistic crime committed by our so-called information sources. And I'm from Illinois. Politicians are universally corrupt, ethically bankrupt liars and hypocrites here. So, not surprised by the lack of response by the politicians to the situation.
Has the ACLU reacted?
Some objective justice is well in order here.
Naw, the ACLU are too busy with this shit:
Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired27b+%28Blog+-+27B+Stroke+6+%28Threat+Level%29%29&utm_content=FaceBook)
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 08, 2010, 04:17:25 AM
If so, I think you have to register as a member of the press. I could be wrong about that, but I'm not sure if it's constitutionally protected.
No, you simply need an outlet for your work. And yes, it's constitutionally protected.
At the very least assault charges should be brought.
What were they afraid he would hear that made them so insistent on no recording?
Was no recording a part of the terms of attending? (Still doesn't excuse the assault)
I don't understand the point of speaking in public if you don't want your message to be disseminated
So from what I'm reading, these guys didn't want this particular dude to film their event because he's associated with press they don't like
so why the fuck did they punch him? that's about the most irresponsible thing you can do to protect your message. Dumb on their part. We never would have heard of this garbage if they hadn't done that.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 08, 2010, 03:17:17 PM
I don't understand the point of speaking in public if you don't want your message to be disseminated
So from what I'm reading, these guys didn't want this particular dude to film their event because he's associated with press they don't like
so why the fuck did they punch him? that's about the most irresponsible thing you can do to protect your message. Dumb on their part. We never would have heard of this garbage if they hadn't done that.
The real message got broadcast, Cram.
"We'll kick your ass."
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:11:20 AM
Aside from the part that quotes him a describing himself as one, is there any corroborative evidence that he is a professional journalist?
You don't have to be a "professional" journalist. All you have to be doing is filming/working on behalf of some kind of journalistic organization. For an event like that he should really have been wearing a press badge, HOWEVER, the fact that he wasn't didn't give their security the right to rough him up.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 08, 2010, 04:48:46 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:11:20 AM
Aside from the part that quotes him a describing himself as one, is there any corroborative evidence that he is a professional journalist?
You don't have to be a "professional" journalist. All you have to be doing is filming/working on behalf of some kind of journalistic organization. For an event like that he should really have been wearing a press badge, HOWEVER, the fact that he wasn't didn't give their security the right to rough him up.
Journalism can be as simple as running a news blog. There are no actual conditions. Yes, he should have worn a press badge, but you're 169% correct: There is no excuse for beating a man for filming a
public speech.
Quote from: Telarus on October 08, 2010, 08:31:02 AM
Naw, the ACLU are too busy with this shit:
Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired27b+%28Blog+-+27B+Stroke+6+%28Threat+Level%29%29&utm_content=FaceBook)
That's some pretty sick shit. End times, man. End times.
So much of our budget is being diverted for spying on US citizens and the "war on drugs". Meanwhile, the economy is in the toilet and people are losing their homes while we bailout the financial institutions that knowingly and wilfully put us in this situation. Meanwhile, we have torture centers for "interrogating" prisoners of illegal wars.
It seems like all of humanity's energy and power to benefit itself is being diverted to hurting itself.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 08, 2010, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: Telarus on October 08, 2010, 08:31:02 AM
Naw, the ACLU are too busy with this shit:
Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired27b+%28Blog+-+27B+Stroke+6+%28Threat+Level%29%29&utm_content=FaceBook)
That's some pretty sick shit. End times, man. End times.
So much of our budget is being diverted for spying on US citizens and the "war on drugs". Meanwhile, the economy is in the toilet and people are losing their homes while we bailout the financial institutions that knowingly and wilfully put us in this situation. Meanwhile, we have torture centers for "interrogating" prisoners of illegal wars.
It seems like all of humanity's energy and power to benefit itself is being diverted to hurting itself.
Holy fuck we have economic HIV.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 08, 2010, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: Telarus on October 08, 2010, 08:31:02 AM
Naw, the ACLU are too busy with this shit:
Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired27b+%28Blog+-+27B+Stroke+6+%28Threat+Level%29%29&utm_content=FaceBook)
That's some pretty sick shit. End times, man. End times.
So much of our budget is being diverted for spying on US citizens and the "war on drugs". Meanwhile, the economy is in the toilet and people are losing their homes while we bailout the financial institutions that knowingly and wilfully put us in this situation. Meanwhile, we have torture centers for "interrogating" prisoners of illegal wars.
It seems like all of humanity's energy and power to benefit itself is being diverted to hurting itself.
It's a good thing the FBI isn't racially or religiously profiling anyone.
Especially given that the last serious terrorist attempt was done by the Huttaree Militia, 8 WASP inbreds from Michigan.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 08, 2010, 05:02:55 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 08, 2010, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: Telarus on October 08, 2010, 08:31:02 AM
Naw, the ACLU are too busy with this shit:
Caught Spying on Student, FBI Demands GPS Tracker Back (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/fbi-tracking-device/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired27b+%28Blog+-+27B+Stroke+6+%28Threat+Level%29%29&utm_content=FaceBook)
That's some pretty sick shit. End times, man. End times.
So much of our budget is being diverted for spying on US citizens and the "war on drugs". Meanwhile, the economy is in the toilet and people are losing their homes while we bailout the financial institutions that knowingly and wilfully put us in this situation. Meanwhile, we have torture centers for "interrogating" prisoners of illegal wars.
It seems like all of humanity's energy and power to benefit itself is being diverted to hurting itself.
Holy fuck we have economic HIV.
This.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 08, 2010, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 08, 2010, 03:17:17 PM
I don't understand the point of speaking in public if you don't want your message to be disseminated
So from what I'm reading, these guys didn't want this particular dude to film their event because he's associated with press they don't like
so why the fuck did they punch him? that's about the most irresponsible thing you can do to protect your message. Dumb on their part. We never would have heard of this garbage if they hadn't done that.
The real message got broadcast, Cram.
"We'll kick your ass."
HEH!
re: CRAM, there was no knowledge at the moment who this guy was, the church hosting is just apparently a bit unprofessional in regards to events like this. i'm assuming the aggressors are their ushers; maybe this is how they shake down folks on sunday(?). granted, that guy repeating "my first amendment rights" again & again must have been super annoying, but really!! -the "no video" issue comes from the church making an agreement with a local news station(which may have been KOIN's overstepping) to have exclusive recording privilege. But this was not posted for anyone entering the event.
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:38:11 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 08, 2010, 05:29:00 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:11:20 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on October 09, 2010, 08:09:29 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:38:11 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 08, 2010, 05:29:00 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:11:20 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Yep.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on October 09, 2010, 08:09:29 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:38:11 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 08, 2010, 05:29:00 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:11:20 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 11:53:35 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on October 09, 2010, 08:09:29 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:38:11 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on October 08, 2010, 05:29:00 AM
Quote from: Phox on October 08, 2010, 05:11:20 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Phox on October 10, 2010, 09:07:12 PM
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?
Also, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism
QuoteDefinition 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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 07:09:50 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 10, 2010, 09:07:12 PM
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!
:awesome:
Quote from: Phox on October 09, 2010, 11:53:35 PM
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.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 07:11:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 07:09:50 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 10, 2010, 09:07:12 PM
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!
:awesome:
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.
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
Quote"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
Now you've gone and broken her statist little heart.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 07:30:53 PM
Now you've gone and broken her statist little heart.
:thanks:
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 07:29:19 PM
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
Quote"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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 07:30:53 PM
Now you've gone and broken her statist little heart.
:lulz:
Mind if I ask what you meant when you said "as a future lawyer"? Surely you are not a law student.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
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?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:29:36 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
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?
It doesn't. I don't think I made the claim it did? Though, I suppose I came off like that. That wasn't my intention, but I guess I should be less obtrusive in my opinions. Especially when I'm wrong. :lulz:
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
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.
I'm going to guess that you're in your second year right now, right? Your posts have sophomore cockiness written all over them.
One of the first things you'll learn if you make it into law school is to research every opinion before you express it.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:34:18 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
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.
I'm going to guess that you're in your second year right now, right? Your posts have sophomore cockiness written all over them.
One of the first things you'll learn if you make it into law school is to research every opinion before you express it.
Actually, 4th year. And that sort of cockiness is from 3 of philosophy. In every class I've ever taken in this department, they tell us to state our opinions as if fact, to lend credence to our arguments. I really try to avoid that by saying the unspeakable "I think" and "in my opinion", but obviously, I don't always succeed.
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:34:18 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
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.
I'm going to guess that you're in your second year right now, right? Your posts have sophomore cockiness written all over them.
One of the first things you'll learn if you make it into law school is to research every opinion before you express it.
Actually, 4th year. And that sort of cockiness is from 3 of philosophy. In every class I've ever taken in this department, they tell us to state our opinions as if fact, to lend credence to our arguments. I really try to avoid that by saying the unspeakable "I think" and "in my opinion", but obviously, I don't always succeed.
Oh.
A philosophy major.
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:37:34 PM
Actually, 4th year. And that sort of cockiness is from 3 of philosophy. In every class I've ever taken in this department, they tell us to state our opinions as if fact, to lend credence to our arguments. I really try to avoid that by saying the unspeakable "I think" and "in my opinion", but obviously, I don't always succeed.
Fuck e prime, anyway.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:38:54 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:34:18 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
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.
I'm going to guess that you're in your second year right now, right? Your posts have sophomore cockiness written all over them.
One of the first things you'll learn if you make it into law school is to research every opinion before you express it.
Actually, 4th year. And that sort of cockiness is from 3 of philosophy. In every class I've ever taken in this department, they tell us to state our opinions as if fact, to lend credence to our arguments. I really try to avoid that by saying the unspeakable "I think" and "in my opinion", but obviously, I don't always succeed.
Oh.
A philosophy major.
Now, now, she'll be fine. She might get a job keeping motion sensitive lights on, by flapping her arms.
I'm just trying to contain the way I feel about philosophy majors.
Because Phox doesn't seem like a bad sort, for a philosophy major, and surely doesn't deserve... that.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:40:43 PM
I'm just trying to contain the way I feel about philosophy majors.
Because Phox doesn't seem like a bad sort, for a philosophy major, and surely doesn't deserve... that.
SHIT YOUR HATE, OR YOU WILL
DIE!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:39:42 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:38:54 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:37:34 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:34:18 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
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.
I'm going to guess that you're in your second year right now, right? Your posts have sophomore cockiness written all over them.
One of the first things you'll learn if you make it into law school is to research every opinion before you express it.
Actually, 4th year. And that sort of cockiness is from 3 of philosophy. In every class I've ever taken in this department, they tell us to state our opinions as if fact, to lend credence to our arguments. I really try to avoid that by saying the unspeakable "I think" and "in my opinion", but obviously, I don't always succeed.
Oh.
A philosophy major.
Now, now, she'll be fine. She might get a job keeping motion sensitive lights on, by flapping her arms.
:lulz:
I only majored in Phil because I can take all the logic classes I want and they count towards my major, in prep for the LSAT. Though adding Classics as a second was purely for fun and so eventually I can get a Dr. put in front of my name.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:40:43 PM
I'm just trying to contain the way I feel about philosophy majors.
Because Phox doesn't seem like a bad sort, for a philosophy major, and surely doesn't deserve... that.
Oh don't worry, I hate philosophy majors too. They're all pricks. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:40:43 PM
I'm just trying to contain the way I feel about philosophy majors.
Because Phox doesn't seem like a bad sort, for a philosophy major, and surely doesn't deserve... that.
SHIT YOUR HATE, OR YOU WILL DIE!
GGGGGNNNNNNNNAAAAAAARRRRRRRRFGH!!!!! \
:walken:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:29:36 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
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?
Speaking as a mother, I find her offensive to my sensibilities. She might put BadWrong ideas in my little precious Munchkin's head!
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 12, 2010, 12:10:05 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:40:43 PM
I'm just trying to contain the way I feel about philosophy majors.
Because Phox doesn't seem like a bad sort, for a philosophy major, and surely doesn't deserve... that.
SHIT YOUR HATE, OR YOU WILL DIE!
GGGGGNNNNNNNNAAAAAAARRRRRRRRFGH!!!!!
\
:walken:
YOUR NEW AVATAR! :lulz: :fap:
Quote from: Mistress Freeky, HRN on October 12, 2010, 01:04:56 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:29:36 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:23:43 PM
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?
Speaking as a mother, I find her offensive to my sensibilities. She might put BadWrong ideas in my little precious Munchkin's head!
Only if you let me. :wink:
I say we burn her at the stake for having the wrong values.
I have steaks, and kerosene.
Also, philosophy major, :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Phox on October 11, 2010, 10:43:52 PM
:lulz:
I only majored in Phil because I can take all the logic classes I want and they count towards my major, in prep for the LSAT. Though adding Classics as a second was purely for fun and so eventually I can get a Dr. put in front of my name.
That's what minors and low credit hour majors are for.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 12, 2010, 01:07:58 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 12, 2010, 12:10:05 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 11, 2010, 10:41:22 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on October 11, 2010, 10:40:43 PM
I'm just trying to contain the way I feel about philosophy majors.
Because Phox doesn't seem like a bad sort, for a philosophy major, and surely doesn't deserve... that.
SHIT YOUR HATE, OR YOU WILL DIE!
GGGGGNNNNNNNNAAAAAAARRRRRRRRFGH!!!!!
\
:walken:
YOUR NEW AVATAR! :lulz: :fap:
Hahaha yeah! Already half-lit on bourbon, darting into the back of your Jeep after leaving our nefarious "offering" at the Wall. Ahhh, good times!