HomeUncategorizedCourt of Appeals Rules Against Politicians, like Rep. Steve Chabot, That Confiscate Video Equipment
Share

Remember when Congressman Steve Chabot had police confiscate camcorders and cell phones at one of his town-hall meetings? Well it United States Court of Appeals found it was a violation of the 1st Amendment. So when your representatives hold a public town-hall, take your camcorder, camera and or cell phone and film away and if they give you any shit hand them a copy of this. Print it out and put it in your camera case or your automobile glove compartment.

And the Judge said.

It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information.

As the Supreme Court has observed, “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978); see also Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (“It is . . .well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.”). An important corollary to this interest in protecting the stock of public information is that “[t]here is an undoubted right to gather news ‘from any source by means within the law.’” Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 11 (1978) (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681-82 (1972)).

The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966).

Moreover, as 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.’” First Nat’l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n.11 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966).

 

 

Comments

comments


Comments

Court of Appeals Rules Against Politicians, like Rep. Steve Chabot, That Confiscate Video Equipment — 2 Comments

  1. you might want to think twice. I know of two times I have had someone try and block my camera.