Pixiq

Lets go to the root of the problem. Without honest principles we cause our own destruction.

Do politicians represent you? Is there a principal-agent relationship?

Taxes are compulsory. Pay up or go to jail. That's not representation. That's ownership.

Should a service be provided at the barrel of a gun?

On July 19, 2011, as our Columbus, Miss. city council was conducting its regularly scheduled city council meeting (covered by the Miss. state Open Meetings Law), I was barred from entering the council chambers for carrying a video camera. The officer who threatened to arrest me, were I to cross the line at the metal detector in the city municipal building with the camera, informed me that only the press were to be allowed to record the meeting per instructions from his police depart. supervisor (a captain, who also is the depart. chaplain). I was detained in the lobby until the meeting was almost over.
The subject of the "open meeting" (defined as new business under the city charter) was the termination of the city's highly popular police chief, who was on suspension the night of the meeting. I operate a local web forum where citizens can read and post opinions without the prior approval of anyone in city government.

http://ctalks.net/index.php?showtopic=14446&st=0&p=145618&#entry145618

http://ctalks.net/index.php?showtopic=14458&st=0&p=145683&fromsearch=1&#...

These are the threads from the latest incident on the night of the regularly scheduled open meeting of the city council where they fired the police chief.

I organized the action and made the video posted in this article and we are preparing for a lawsuit, is that actually a law?

Awesome I really pray someone brings this into light.

You obviously don't know anything about Wisconsin politics. Governor Scott Walker is a republican, and about as partisan as you could imagine. Thinking he would criticize another republican is ridiculous.

Thanks for bringing this to light.

Love how a bunch of elected employees think they wield more power than the Constitution.

Time to vote ALL of them out of office regardless of political affiliation.

Of the People, By the People, for the People.

Apparently they added more to Rule 26 back in March that hasn't made it to the online documents.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_44b6ca48...

How do you define credentialed?

Is it someone who has a government issued press license? That can't be Constitutional.

An employee of a news publishing organization? A freelancer?

I wonder how much Pixiq would charge for a set of "volunteer freelancer" or "commenter" credentials?

Don't have any ideas on getting them back, but you should have declined to delete them, they don't have a SINGLE legal right to make you. And while they were hassling me I probably would have emailed them to an outside email account just to make sure that there were no "accidental" deletions.

Also, "on principle" you've already lost, you backed down to their "authority", so whatever principle you had was lost.. Sorry man.

NEVER DELETE PHOTOS! They are your property AND not even law enforcement can make you.

First local ordinances must conform to state law, they NEVER supercede them. Local ordinances also must be allowed by the state, cities are not allowed to make law on absolutely any topic they want, most (if not all) limit them. By our consitution only the federal government and the state government have direct lawmaking powers. The states can allow political sub-divisions such as counties and cities to make local law. And local open meetings laws are RARELY ever allowed to conflict with state law, for precisely the reason they exist. So the old line "I was just following orders" isn't going to protect the cop in this case.

Also the average joe has EXACTLY the same RIGHTS as credentialed journalist, having read the constitution there is no journalist exception to anything, we may have afforded greater privilege in the past to journalists but this wasn't because there was any legal obligation. you mention there is in the Constituion, please point it out. Also keeping in mind that courts have recognized the rather significant change in journalism in the last 20 years, from a recent decision paraphrased; a citizen journalist is as likely to break a story as a credentialed journalist. I think that was from the first circuit decision about a week ago. This recognizes a cultural shift that was always legally true.

You bring up specific private venues. This presents other issues, such as even as a journalist you don't have a right to be AYWHERE there. You generally don't have 1st amendment rights on private property, many of your rights are limited by what the property owner allows. They can chose media outlets and decide exactly who is going to be allowed where. And in almost no cases do you or anyone else have the right to even question it. Public venues present major issues for the government, they are obligated to follow the 1st amendment, it isn't optional, they can perform some limited time and place restrictions on EVERYONE including journalists.

My politics run far right but the simple fact here is that lately Republicans have been getting STUPID about cameras and making themselves only look STUPIDER. I don't see an issue with the cameras, and I don't care if the idiot doesn't want to end up in a viral video, welcome to a free country.. State law seems to be the decider in this and local rules MUST comport to that, assembly rules are not LAW, they can readily only restrict assembly members behavior. If they think it can bind me then show me the law that makes it so because in the end that is all that matters..

Sorry notliberal. You are wrong.

Judge Lipez First Circuit Court:
“...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... Changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw,” Judge Lipez wrote. “Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”

First Circuit Court:
"Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the newsgathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status."

"The average joe does not have the same rights as the press in government, sports venues, entertainment venues, etc. It's not elitist, it's simply acknowledging that there are truly professionals in this world who represent media outlets, who have the appropriate experience (you don't put just anyone in the pits of the Indy 500, for example, with a camera), etc."

From Glik v. Cunniffe ( http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf PDF):
"The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the
Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of
the news media; rather, the public's right of access to information
is coextensive with that of the press."

There is more truth to this than you realize, with the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently ruling that the legislature does not have to abide by the same Open Meetings Laws as other governmental bodies. The courts have traditionally allowed the legislature to set their own rules of conduct.