jugoso Posted November 4, 2011 #1 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Guns, Yes. Cameras, No.The protest was organized through a Facebook event called "Concealed Camera Day at the Capitol!" The event coincided with the implementation of Wisconsin's new concealed carry law, which allows residents to carry a concealed firearm -- including inside the Assembly gallery. Read more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MstrMsn Posted November 4, 2011 #2 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) "Despite this, both the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions have provisions protecting the right to free speech, free assembly, and a free press. "The gallery is a free speech area," says attorney Jim Mueller, who was ticketed in October for violating the Assembly rule. "Even if there are rules against signs, they're unconstitutional. It is our right to peaceably assemble and petition the government" While the First Amendment DOES grant free speech, assembly and press, it doesn't mean that a ban on cameras is in fact, a violation of that Right. Nor does it mean that a ban on signs violates free speech. And it's not "free assembly". It's "peaceably assemble". There is a major difference in meaning. So, basically, no, there weren't any rights being violated. As for the Wisconsin Constitution: "SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged." "SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." We can see in the Washington State Constitution that there aren't any violations of rights going on, either. Neither Constitution protects signs or cameras, as clearly stated in each amendment and/or section. Edited November 4, 2011 by MstrMsn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted November 4, 2011 #3 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) "Despite this, both the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions have provisions protecting the right to free speech, free assembly, and a free press. "The gallery is a free speech area," says attorney Jim Mueller, who was ticketed in October for violating the Assembly rule. "Even if there are rules against signs, they're unconstitutional. It is our right to peaceably assemble and petition the government" While the First Amendment DOES grant free speech, assembly and press, it doesn't mean that a ban on cameras is in fact, a violation of that Right. Nor does it mean that a ban on signs violates free speech. And it's not "free assembly". It's "peaceably assemble". There is a major difference in meaning. So, basically, no, there weren't any rights being violated.As for the Wisconsin Constitution: "SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged." "SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." We can see in the Washington State Constitution that there aren't any violations of rights going on, either. Neither Constitution protects signs or cameras, as clearly stated in each amendment and/or section. In todays world, how can a ban on cammera's not be a violation of the press? Not only were official members of the press arrested, but The press isnt always anyone with a government license to write stories. Today it could very much include the average Joe posting a video on youtube. One has to question why a ban on cammera's are nesessary. Personaly I can only think of one reason. Evil men do thier evil in the dark, out of view, so that the light might not expose thier deeds. Edited November 4, 2011 by preacherman76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MstrMsn Posted November 4, 2011 #4 Share Posted November 4, 2011 In todays world, how can a ban on cammera's not be a violation of the press? Not only were official members of the press arrested, but The press isnt always anyone with a government license to write stories. Today it could very much include the average Joe posting a video on youtube. One has to question why a ban on cammera's are nesessary. Personaly I can only think of one reason. Evil men do thier evil in the dark, out of view, so that the light might not expose thier deeds. First, you don't need a camera to report something. Look at most newspapers, not all of the stories in them have pictures to go along. Second, these political assemblies were open to the public, so there's no "Evil men do thier evil in the dark, out of view, so that the light might not expose thier deeds". Also, this isn't about conspiracy theories, so if you wish to view it from that angle, I suggest bring it to the proper forum. This is about whether or not cameras are constitutionally protected. And the facts are: The press doesn't NEED to have cameras. In fact (and going along with YOUR CT), video cameras can be used to distort something that actually happened, into whatever the person wants it to be, using certain clips strung together to show something that really didn't happen. Then again, that's not really a CT, seeing as how youtube and other video sites have countless videos that were spun to come off as something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now