The Video Of Wisconsin Activists Getting Arrested For Using Cameras In Capitol
The video of the Wisconsin activists who were arrested for using a camera inside the state assembly on Tuesday was posted today on Youtube today.
Considering there is no actual law in the books that makes it illegal to use cameras in the state assembly, the 18 activists were charged with the vague crime of “other conduct prohibited,” which is more of a catch-all charge than the usual disorderly conduct charge you get with these contempt-of-cop cases.
But to be honest, the cops making the arrests appear to be just going through the motions, not allowing their personal feelings to get in the way of trampling on the First Amendment rights of citizens.
Arthur Kohl-Riggs, who shot the video (and who was arrested for disorderly conduct last month for shooting video), said that’s because they have been reprimanded for using excessive force in the past, so “they are on strict orders to be extra gentle.”
Meanwhile, a group of activists who were arrested in March for holding up signs filed a lawsuit on Friday.
A group of Capitol protesters sued the state Department of Administration on Friday alleging that a state administrative rule that bans signs and banners from state buildings is unconstitutional.
The six plaintiffs — Jeremy Ryan, Laurie Harty, Anne Hoppe, Kathleen Hoppe, Jenna Pope and Valerie Walasek, all of Madison — were all cited by Capitol police in March for holding signs inside the Capitol in violation of the administrative rule, which makes it a $500 fine for anyone to display or affix a sign without written permission of the state Department of Administration.
The rule and its enforcement violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit states. The lawsuit seeks to have the rule declared unconstitutional as applied to holding of signs and to enjoin its enforcement.
The citations against the six were ultimately dismissed by the Dane County District Attorney's Office.
Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3











San Diego 7 photo gallery — Just Be Love All Stay Cool
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?



































Comments
Is this a constabulary organization or an army of occupation?
This pisses me off to no end...
There is a quarom of PUBLIC SERVANTS. Such a quarom falls under the Open Meetings Act. Public Servants do not get to tell Public Masters they can't observe and record their actions. You're basing your statement off of what the government decided. But the government doesn't get to decide. It's not in their authority or power to make that decision. So don't let them tell us how it's going to be, they work for us. So many people think, just because the government declares they have the right to do something, that they actually have that right just because they say so. By What authority do they have to make such a declaration? NONE. It's is not their job to expand their own authority.
Well, I have to say I find it hard to believe that a ban on photography can be constitutional. I'm leaning towards thinking that it can't be made law (which is why there isn't a law), but when the Supreme Court ruled on segregation (wild example, no correlation or comparison, just the first to spring to mind), it ruled against government segregation, not simply the law(s) enacted to enforce it. Government segregation wouldn't have been constitutional as long as it was a rule, not a law, or am I mistaken on my enterpretation of constitutional practice?
Post new comment