Pixiq

“Of course this being Maryland, we should expect them to put out a warrant for Rothe-Kushel’s arrest for uploading the video that showed Parker making up the laws on the spot.”

Don’t give them any ideas.

So in Maryland does a permit(what type ? ) allow you to keep others from being in public area?

Hopefully the publicity will make them think twice before doing this again. I wrote to the following Maryland officials. Here are the email addresses for them

The officer himself at derwyn.parker@dgs.state.md.us

His superior at phil.palmere@dgs.state.md.us

The director of the Department of General Services that oversees the Capitol Police at alvin.collins@dgs.state.md.us

The Attorney General at oag@oag.state.md.us

And the Governor through his web page at http://www.governor.maryland.gov/mail/

Why didn’t the officer just taze him on the spot? What a pathetic rally, even smaller than the tea-baggers.

In situations like that, you should ask for a supervisor and ask what law you are breaking.

Here’s a youtube video of some evangelical pastors in which the police tried to force them out of an arts festival which had a permit to operate in a public space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX_IoWor2Zo&feature=channel

(that youtube evangelical group has a lot of interesting police videos, though I don’t agree with their message)

The law may vary on this, and it may depend on what the permit actually permits. The permit may permit exclusive access to the area by the group, as opposed to public access. Still, I think the cop was wrong to make him cross the street because the restriction would only apply to the designated area covered by the permit.

I dont think they can corden off any public area enless a crime was committed. at least thats the way it is around here you can have your permit but you cant tell people that they cant be in the area. atleast thats the way i read the permit law here in Nebraska.

Happy Tinfoil Cat, I don’t know what podunk little town tea party rallies you’ve been to, but the rallies I’ve been to have been huge. Especially the one I went to in D.C.

PGP Protector – No, the Maryland cop was just throwing his weight around like a good little authoritarian fascist. I shouldn’t say “little”… He looks like he could be on the Dunkin Donuts wall of fame.

Why is it always the fatties who don’t like being filmed? It seems the bigger the ass, the bigger the ass.

It seems pretty simple. Let people get a public area where they can do something without being overrun by counter demonstrators. On the gay marriage debate I’d agree with the cameraman, but the other side should be allowed to assemble without being harrassed.

‘That man became an issue.’

‘Because he was videotaping?’

‘Correct.’

Wow, is that insane or what? Why have public demonstrations if the public is chased away?

The law is on the side that has the permit. If it was a Hollywood film crew or something that got a permit, they should be able to keep someone from walking through their movie even if it was
on public land. And if that guy really did have a permit – I see no problem other than maybe the cop told him to go too far away.

Actually Carlos you probably should take this story down or at least include what the law states. This is not abuse of 1st amendment rights.

Show me what the law states and I’ll be happy to include it.

But the story remains.
Carlos Miller recently posted..Maryland capitol police threaten videographer with arrest

It may be in here.
http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Gateway/ChapterHome.aspx?ChapterNumber=24-7

It’s late and I’m no lawyer.

@DJTodd, theres a difference between holding a public rally and making a movie. In honestly the video guy was quiet and didn’t seem to make much trouble other then recording. But I doubt recording them was much trouble.

NOM is coming to Indianapolis soon:

Monday, July 26, 2010 from 12:00pm – 1:00pm
State House, East Steps

Getcha cameras ready!

The difference between a public rally and a filming a movie is probably the exclusivity of the use of the public space. Like I said, the permit may provide for the exclusive use of the space, in which case trespassers can be evicted from the space while the permit is in effect. It seems unlikely, however, that a public rally would have such a provision in its permit. And even if it did (or if it was a condition of all permits), it’s a stupid thing to enforce when there is no reasonable grounds for interference.

These NOM people don’t seem to mind confrontation, as shown here:

http://www.marriagetour2010.com/2010/07/gay-activists-embarrass-themselv...

So on this one, I’d blame the cop.

Darn, I wish I had a law degree. Guys I’m pretty sure if you have a permit you can say who can stay and who can go. This is not one of the things we should be focused on. We should be focused on the abuse of power. I think the cop was right – this time.

I’ve read several stories of outside malls that prohibit photography. The law is that they (the mall company) leased the public land and streets in some sort of deal with the city and they can in fact enforce a no photography order and all sorts of other stuff just like it was private property/business. I don’t really agree with that but if you live in that city you should take it up with the city offices or vote some new board members in.

I will continue to dig into this issue because I don’t want people to have incorrect information and get into trouble. To be safe though I would go with the rule of:
If its a public place photography is not prohibited UNLESS the public space is rented or there is a permit for special use.

Guys,

If I have no videocam and just stay where the videographer was, should I get harassed from the cop?

Here’s an update that might surprise you.

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/07/23/maryland-capitol-police-chief-respond...

@DJ Todd,

I’ve been to all kinds of events for which permits had been issued, probably several hundred over the years, in eight to ten states, usually in cities. Mostly to photograph and/or videotape, sometimes to view or participate. I’ve even been involved in the permitting process, in NYC.

A “permit” means that the local government “permits,” allows, the group to provisionally occupy the space on a time-limited basis: set up equipment, chairs, tables, a P.A. system, sometimes with a limit on the number of people, and to do all the sorts of things that are otherwise illegal when you don’t have a permit.

In nearly all cases, no members of the public were excluded. A handful of private events were staged in Manhattan’s Central Park, Brooklyn’s Prospect Park and a couple others. For those, the hosting group had to control access by setting up barriers, providing security, and checking tickets to allow entry.

From what the video showed, there was no restriction on entry to the space for which NOM had the permit. It appeared to be open to the public. According to Carlos’s latest post, the chief of police thought the Lieutenant who harassed the videographer was flat wrong to exclude him.

If NOM had exclusive control over that public space, there would have been evidence of it – barriers, tape, people controlling access. It appears that the cop just made up policy on the spot, and you bought into it.

It’s discrimination enforced by the police. When he told the person he needs to go across the street. I was thinking about someone sitting in a seat on a public bus and being told they need to be sitting in the back of the bus. It is plain and simple discrimination.

Carlos this is a top ten example of law enforcement miss use their powers on video photographers.

I will have to disagree with: ” Carlos this is a top ten example of law enforcement miss use their powers on video photographers.”

Really? I think this has so much more to do with two groups at opposite ends of issues and being childish with each other than it does with police overstepping their authority.

I really don’t believe the guy got thrown out of there because he was VIDEO TAPING. I think if he went there with a sign that said “You Suck” he would have been thrown out. Or maybe the other side would have just lied to the police and said he was making a disturbance if they knew he was from the other group.

I think the video taping part of this situation was not the real issue. I believe one side (NOM???) told the police he was being a problem, and not the police just deciding to harass this guy make him move because video taping. The police did not say anything like due to 9-11 you can’t video tape.

Wow, they didn’t seem to be very effective in reaching many people with their case… This officer should have not bothered the videographer, he wasn’t causing any problems.

Carlos, you where pretty strong on condemning the “Acts 17″ network a while back – are you not going to be against this videographer because you agree with his point of view and his legal prospective and not just the legal prospective?