November 2, 2011

Matt Rothschild — editor of The Progressive — arrested for taking photos of someone getting arrested for taking photos.

There's a rule against taking photos from the gallery of the Wisconsin Assembly. On his shirt, Rothschild had taped a sheet of paper taped with the free speech provisions of the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions.
Like many of the others who filled nearly every seat in the Assembly gallery, Rothschild said he was fed up with the arrests in recent weeks of citizens who defied the Assembly ban on displaying signs, and shooting photos and video....

A contributor to the liberal blog Daily Kos helped draw protesters to the Capitol Tuesday by calling for a "Concealed Camera Day" protest. Comedian Stephen Colbert had great fun on his show Monday night, noting that Wisconsin residents, under the concealed carry law that kicked in Tuesday, will now be able to carry concealed weapons in the Capitol but are not allowed to shoot video of legislative proceedings.
Where's the inconsistency? You can carry a camera, and you can't shoot the gun.
When the Assembly was called to order a little after 6 p.m., protesters sat in the upstairs gallery with signs clearly attached to their shirts. 
There's also a rule against signs. And "public displays" and "demonstrations." Here's video edited from the point of view of the demonstrators. Go to 2:40 to get to the scene inside the gallery. There's singing — "Deep in my heart/I do believe/Walker won't be Governor some day" — and confrontation with the police — "Did you see that guy pushed me?... Don't you ever put your hands on me again or I'll sue you."
About five police officers stood at the back of the room at the time. Soon people starting holding up their cell phones to shoot video. Assembly pages first asked these individuals to put away their phones but, when they were rebuffed, police officers moved in to make arrests.
That is, as we've observed in the past, the photography-related arrests occur only after a person is warned and decides to accept arrest rather than stop.
While the arrests were being made, some protesters yelled at the police. Others simply asked them why they were making arrests. "You could refuse to do this," one protester said to an officer.
Here's the "Concealed Camera Day" post from Giles Goat Boy in the Daily Kos:
Starting Tuesday, November 1st, Wisconsin residents can apply for a permit to carry concealed weapons, and they can then carry those concealed weapons throughout most of the state Capitol building. Guns will soon be allowed in the Assembly gallery, but silently filming from the gallery will get you arrested. Weird, eh?...

For those of you who can show up, here are a few things to know:

1. There is no central meeting place. Bring a camera, even if it's just your cell phone....

3. Some activists might choose to quietly record the proceedings, as is their first amendment right. They might be arrested. This is their choice, and is not required of you to be part of this action. If you do choose to film the proceedings or display signs, you too might be subject to arrest, citations, or jail, so you are more than welcome to simply be a silent observer. More than anything, we want to fill up the gallery with peaceful, quiet witnesses.

5. As I just said, this is a peaceful action. Remain quiet and do not disrupt the Assembly proceedings....

6. This is not a demonstration against the concealed carry law, it is an action meant to point out hypocrisy and to support the first amendment rights of those who have been arrested and jailed.
What was the "hypocrisy"? If you're carrying a "concealed camera," there's no violation of the rules at all. And the demonstrators obviously were not following Goat Boy's rules, because they were not keeping a quiet vigil with concealed cameras. From what I can see, they were disruptive and distracting, which is the reason for the viewpoint-neutral rules of the Assembly.

91 comments:

garage mahal said...

Where's the inconsistency? You can carry a camera, and you can't shoot the gun.

Why enact a law that you can carry a gun into the Capitol if you can't use it?

lyssalovelyredhead said...

What's the connection between guns and cameras which would lead to hypocrisy? Hypocricy here seems to mean "there are two unrelated policies with which I disagree."

(I don't agree with the camera restriction, at least unless someone can convince me that there's a real problem with disruption because of cameras, but calling it hypocrisy is downright stupid and shows the shallowness with which these people so often think.)

- Lyssa

ndspinelli said...

Classic muddled post..time to decaf professor.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

. . . and I still have a massive problem spelling the word "hypocrisy."

traditionalguy said...

The war of rebellion against middleclass laws continues by the valiant and over educated, but useless, class.

One suggestion is that the all get huge SLRs with oversized lens carried by shoulder straps with a sign that says Big Brother is Watching You.

The goal is disruption of society. If we cannot have our way, then everything must stop!

edutcher said...

Seems like a lot of people want to relive the bad old days of the 60s. Getting thrown in jail was so much fun for Mom and Dad, Junior has to to it, too.

Since the arrests have been made which will be used to test the law and the civil rights lawyers will soon file their briefs, there doesn't seem to be much point in spending a night in the slammer.

But I guess pointless pretty much sums up these people.

Henry said...

Are there any other rules left to violate? Is there a rule against pissing off the gallery? Maybe the protestors can violate that next. They can keep themselves busy all winter with a little imagination.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Many-- not all-- liberals are attracted to liberalism because it subsists on transgression. This explains the association of communists and anarchists, who don't understand what a dumbass coalition this is.

traditionalguy said...

Garage...The answer to your question is deterrence.

Why does the USA keep a Nuclear Triad Defense capability? No one is attacking us, except the White House, which wants to eliminate that capability and trust the UN Police.

garage mahal said...

"Rules" made on the fly trumps what State Constitution says. Always.

Shouting Thomas said...

Another Journolist campaign?

Once again, I gotta say that I hope garbage is getting paid to be a Democratic Party stooge.

Anybody who would lie as profoundly and deliberately as garbage, without getting paid for the effort, has to be a complete fucking fool.

m stone said...

The goal is disruption of society. If we cannot have our way, then everything must stop!

That, friends, says it all. Thank you TG.

Allie's Apple said...

Why did he push him? Why was that necessary?It Is ludicrous that one can carry a deadly weapon into the Capitol, but not a camera. Maybe that's because the documentation of the truth is the deadliest weapon of all.

Allie's Apple said...

Not a camera into the gallery that is.

Shouting Thomas said...

Doesn't some CSPAN type of TV coverage of the Wisconsin legislature already exist?

I can see very good reasons for not allowing video coverage.

Leftists constantly e-mail me heavily edited videos as "proof" of one or another of their theories.

I worked in video for years. Still do it for my own purposes. You can "prove" anything by editing video. Video is one of the most deceptive media forms in existence.

Unless you see the entire, unedited video of a legislative proceedings, you might very well be getting fleeced by a partisan editor.

Class factotum said...

It Is ludicrous that one can carry a deadly weapon into the Capitol, but not a camera.

But you can carry a camera into the gallery.

You just can't take photos.

Whether that is a good rule or not is a different issue, but the Dems had no problem with it when they ran things.

Shanna said...

Deep in my heart/I do believe/Walker won't be Governor some day

This is true for all governors, everywhere in the history of time.

Why enact a law that you can carry a gun into the Capitol if you can't use it?

Because you don't want to leave it in the car (or if you walk/take other transportation you don't want to leave it home). Because there might be circumstances where it would be permissible to shoot the gun like self defense or defense of others? There could be many reasons. Similarly, probably nobody would be arrested for taking a picture of a bad guy in a hostage situation.

Allie's Apple said...

It Is ludicrous that one can carry a deadly weapon into the Capitol, but not a camera.

But you can carry a camera into the gallery.

You just can't take photos.

Whether that is a good rule or not is a different issue, but the Dems had no problem with it when they ran things.

11/2/11 10:04 AM

Parsing words? Of course I am referring to using said camera to photograph or video.

Nichevo said...

Allie - you again who was apfelkuchen and mitochondria?

Why keep changing your handle?

Don't get defensive, it's a legit ask. And I will give the most likely answer: having poisoned those two identities with partisan vitriol you want to start fresh and hope people will pretend not to notice.

Which is fine - but if you keep on as you were, you'll be on your next identity in a short time.

Word to the wise.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

It Is ludicrous that one can carry a deadly weapon into the Capitol, but not a camera.

What's the connection between a gun and a camera? They're two entirely different policies, with different reasons behind them. Lumping them together makes no sense.

Allie's Apple said...

Nichevo, is there an Althouse rule that one cannot change ones moniker? YES for the last time I am Mitichondri Aliie, Yes Imam Apfelkuchen, how many times must I post this? I combined my last two monikers, so it's evident I am hiding nothing,

Ann Althouse said...

"Why enact a law that you can carry a gun into the Capitol if you can't use it?"

What if I'm out wandering the city, confident in my safety because I'm carrying my gun, and I feel like stopping in and seeing the rotunda or observing my legislators, and then I want to go back out later and walk home, possibly in the middle of the night, and I want to be able to fend off robbers and rapists?

ndspinelli said...

Shouting Thomas, I can answer your question as you would: No, you stupid idiot, there is now C-Span like coverage in Wisconsin!

Or, I can be civil and respond: Unfortunately no programming like that exists, which is a problem.

Allie's Apple said...

Another thought Nichevo, this is a good thread, are we going to derail it again by attacks on my identity?

elmo iscariot said...

Since the Goat Boy is framing the right to photograph as a First Amendment issue (not unreasonably, IMO), the "hypocrisy" is presumably the fact that Wisconsin will allow the carrying of firearms because it's an enumerated Constitutional right while forbidding the taking of photographs despite that also being an enumerated right.

The distinction between carrying and using isn't really relevant to this point.

ndspinelli said...

Professor, I agree w/ your assessment. However, there is a solution but of course it costs money. Cops have to check their weapons prior to entering a jail to interview an inmate. A similar system could be enacted. However, this would require lockers and an attendant. I don't think it's needed, but it is an option.

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

Why enact a law that you can carry a gun into the Capitol if you can't use it?


That's the equivalent of saying, why allow unionista marxist leftards like Garage McDoughboy who pretend to have a brain, be allowed in the capital and think they know how to use it. Like being allowed to carry a gun in the capital but not using it is the mentality of someone like you, for the only two reasons to even us a gun in the capital are for either self defense or for criminality. So which side do you fall on I wonder?

YoungHegelian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robin said...

Prof. Althouse, garage would prefer that you be vulnerable to a crime than that you disturb his view of the world.

garage mahal said...

What if I'm out wandering the city, confident in my safety because I'm carrying my gun, and I feel like stopping in and seeing the rotunda or observing my legislators, and then I want to go back out later and walk home, possibly in the middle of the night, and I want to be able to fend off robbers and rapists?

If a gun is forbidden to be used in the Capitol then it should be checked in by the Capitol police.

I wonder what those metal detectors were for as you entered the Capitiol just a few months ago? It's all so confusing.

Shanna said...

Some activists might choose to quietly record the proceedings, as is their first amendment right.

Can someone cite the part of the first amendment that covers recording rights?

William said...

It is very difficult to shoot someone with a gun without their becoming aware of the fact that they were shot. Less so with a camera....I don't understand the rule against cameras. It doesn't seem to be enforceable. You can only enforce it when the photographer makes an overt show of taking a picture. You really have to go out of your way to get caught violating this law....The protestors and the police seem equally self indulgent on this exquisite point of silliness.

YoungHegelian said...

@Althouse,

What if I'm out wandering the city, confident in my safety because I'm carrying my gun, and I feel like stopping in and seeing the rotunda or observing my legislators, and then I want to go back out later and walk home, possibly in the middle of the night, and I want to be able to fend off robbers and rapists?

Oh you lawyers and your gol-durned hypotheticals! Next thing you know you're going to be positing shooting the dean in a Criminal Law class or somethin'!

Meade said...

That photo of Rothchild being arrested for taking photos of someone getting arrested for taking photos... is really quite arresting.

MarkG said...

Why enact a law that you can carry a gun into the Capitol if you can't use it?

I believe the rules explicitly list places you can't carry rather than places you can carry.

Dems' failed version: "Can carry: 49th & Main, 50th & Main, 51st & Main ..."

Allie's Apple said...

Shanna, they can't.

MarkG said...

If a gun is forbidden to be used in the Capitol then it should be checked in by the Capitol police.

Is it really less legal to use your gun in the Capitol than it is on State Street? Did someone make a law saying you can't defend yourself in the Capitol?

jimbino said...

Could you carry in a camera that had no "off" switch? I see no reason why a camera couldn't be permanently "on" and permanently broadcasting the image by radio.

Shouting Thomas said...

If these leftists are really concerned about public availability of legislative proceedings, then they should be agitating for some type of CSPAN style coverage of those proceedings.

That way, people could refer to those live and videotaped records as verifiable and un-edited.

Allowing spectators to videotape and produce their own edited versions will produce only completely unreliable public records. Private edited video is complete unreliable as a public record.

How about it, leftist stooges? If your goal is really a reliable public record, then push for CSPAN type coverage of the legislature.

Nichevo said...

No, Allie, it's fine, I was just wondering why you did it. By all means we can move on.

As for the thread subject: 1) you might want to defend yourself in the Capitol against some nutter, 2) it might be more convenient to keep gun on hand rather than leave it elsewhere, 3) if you have a 1A right to possess cameras you certainly have a 2A right to bear arms, 4) Heaven forbid the pols have any reason to fear the people, eh?

And 5) if we lived in a society where it was usual to be armed, we wouldn't worry about it.

The Left (as seen in Leftish friends of mine, I'm not making it up from thin air) is all about fear - afraid of gays, afraid of Muslims, afraid of whatever, it's always posed with this talismanic quality as "what are you afraid of?" So, what are Leftists afraid of, that the people are armed, in a sense that they are not afraid of, say, the cars which kill and hurt far more than guns in America?

Allie's Apple said...

Ndspinelli and garage have it right, why not check the guns at the door? This business of carrying a gun into the Capitol with the continuing political unrest may end up in a tragedy.

Shouting Thomas said...

Allie, what you suggest (checking weapons) sounds good, but like most liberal theories works out just the opposite in practice.

Publicizing that some area is "gun free" has proved to be an invitation to psychopaths to commit massacres.

Remember all those school massacres in those sacred "gun free" spaces?

Liberals have difficulty distinguishing between what sounds good and what actually works. This results in a fatal obsession with "niceness."

elmo iscariot said...

Setting up a secure "gun check" costs money, space, and time.

When it's as simple as posting a "no guns" sign, many building administrators will say "hey, why not?" When required to do a cost/benefit analysis, they generally realize that the risk is an order of magnitude smaller than the building being set on fire by a rogue lightning bolt during a session, and choose not to spend the resources.

garage mahal said...

I believe the rules explicitly list places you can't carry rather than places you can carry..

The argument from people like Althouse and Rep Vos is that you can carry inside the Capitol, but cannot use it. But apparently we have established that guns can be used, but a camera, never?

Again, they installed metal detectors last summer at the entrance to the Capitol. For what?

Carol_Herman said...

People, today, can buy pens with a camera head imbedded. And, the pen just sits in a man's shirt pocket.

You don't have to be the FBI to be "wired" ... And, all the politicians are doing is putting at risk their abilities to ONLY appear on programs they approve. Which no one no longer pays any attention to.

Anyway, Matt Rothschild's business is journalism. Seems he's been handed a story by this arrest. Where the old admonition, stated by William Randolph Hearst: "Don't pick on a man who buys ink by the barrel."

Shouting Thomas said...

Once again, garbage, get on the bandwagon for live TV and unedited videotape of the legislature or shut up.

That's the one and only solution the left can legitimately argue for.

TWM said...

"You could refuse to do this."

But why? I enjoy it so much." :)

MarkG said...

Again, they installed metal detectors last summer at the entrance to the Capitol. For what?

Good question. They should sell them to Illinois.

Allie's Apple said...

Garage, remember the hoopla over the spilled bullets outside the Capitol?

cubanbob said...

If there is one issue all sides can agree with is this. It is beyond amazing that the public should be forbidden to photograph public officials conduction the public's business in the public's house.

Yes video can be edited. The cure is a C-Span style tapping so if someone selectively edits a video to misrepresent a legislator there is always the C-Span style recording to counter the editing.

It is disturbing this trend nationally among legislators, police and other government types trying to suppress their being photographed while performing their jobs.

Allie's Apple said...

We have Wiseye, but during all the hottest debating last winter, it was unreliable and off air during times when it should've been broadcasting.

Shouting Thomas said...

No, it is not "beyond amazing."

Videotaping and photographing can be very disruptive actions.

The public's right to know would be completely served by like TV and unedited videotape.

Meade said...

"it was unreliable and off air during times when it should've been broadcasting"

Can you tell us specifically when those time were?

DADvocate said...

This is not a demonstration against the concealed carry law,...

Then why did Goat Boy make it part of this issue in his statement? Is someone concealed carrying allowed to be noisy and disruptive, as opposed to silently carrying a camera?

Are these "protesters" capable of elementary logic and basic civility? They're not painting a pretty picture of Wisconsites.

Shouting Thomas said...

Was the anti-photography law in effect when Democrats held the majority?

If so, then this contretemps is just another childish refusal on the part of the loon left to harass the sitting legislature and governor.

Meade said...

WisconsinEye

Allie's Apple said...

Meade , I would love to, but since that is an impossible task, you know I can't. That's not a good argument for disproving my assertion.

Christopher said...

Is it really illegal to "use" your gun in the Capitol? Apart from the fact that carrying is, for some, a deterrent, thus you are using it--apart from that, I doubt it would be illegal for citizens to defend themselves with their guns if they were being hunted down by crazed lawmakers. To cite one hypothetical.

The war against photography continues. Now that's a crazy law.

Meade said...

Not arguing. I thought maybe you'd like to offer proof of your own assertion in order to give your assertion credibility.

Kirk Parker said...

"Why enact a law that you can carry a gun into the Capitol if you can't use it? "

Idiot.

Kirk Parker said...

... but I guess we already knew that.

Allie's Apple said...

Meade again if that were a realistic task I would gladly do it.

Joanna said...

Don't you need a concealed carry permit in order to bring a gun into the Capitol?

Wouldn't the most accurate "Concealed Camera Day" protest be asking for a permit process for recording in the Capitol?

garage mahal said...

Garage, remember the hoopla over the spilled bullets outside the Capitol?

And that's when the metal detectors were installed. Hmmmm. Presumably to keep out weapons that they are going out of their way to now allow. What's left to be said about this bunch I don't know. I do know if they thought guns were necessary for self defense inside the Capitol they would not allow them in the first place.

Kirk Parker said...

elmo,

"Setting up a secure 'gun check' costs money, space, and time. "

True enough, and setting up a truly-secure perimeter around the gun-banned space adds another order of magnitude in all three of those measures.



FWIW, my pie-in-the-sky dream, of which I've seen a few glimmers of possibility (e.g. bills being filed in a few places), is that any entity creating or making use of a gun-free zone situation is deemed to have assumed liability for the reduced ability of those inside to defend themselves. Then, and only then, will the true costs be weighted in anyone's cost-benefit analysis.

Kirk Parker said...

Allie,

Although I comment using my real name, I'm not really interested in second-guessing those who want to, or feel the need to, use a pseudonym. Feel free, and don't feel bad about it, plenty of people use pseudonyms for a variety of reasons.

However, given that the whole point of a moniker is to establish identity, people will notice when someone changes theirs frequently, and it won't generally be an approving kind of notice, either.

elmo iscariot said...

And that's when the metal detectors were installed. Hmmmm. Presumably to keep out weapons that they are going out of their way to now allow.

Of course, back then before Wisconsin joined the 21st century, a gun-detector was also a criminal-detector. One could reasonably argue that prior to the concealed carry reform, screening for guns was detecting people more likely than average to be violent criminals, since they were by definition armed people knowingly violating a law. Even if the law was unjust, you'd still presumably be selecting a group with a higher ratio of violent criminals.

elmo iscariot said...

Kirk,

Private businesses can of course do what they want. But with regard to the "sensitive places" the SCOTUS talked about in Heller, I agree that some specific requirements are called for.

One proposal I've heard--which would require the aforementioned secure gun checks (so as to avoid disarming citizens on their way to and from said places); screening to ensure others were complying with the ban; and alternative security in the form of a police presence--would force policymakers to honestly think through how necessary the prohibition is, rather than just saying "What the hell, let's ban guns in all Post Offices. Sensitive places, donchyaknow."

Sofa King said...

The argument from people like Althouse and Rep Vos is that you can carry inside the Capitol, but cannot use it. But apparently we have established that guns can be used, but a camera, never?



Both the taking of photographs and the discharge of firearms are legally prohibited in the Capitol. The criminal privileges of defense and necessity excuse either activity when necessary to prevent great body harm or death. There is literally no inconsistency in the law here, except in your own fevered imagination.

TosaGuy said...

"That's not a good argument for disproving my assertion."

Assertions that are taken seriously typically are backed with evidence.

garage mahal said...

Both the taking of photographs and the discharge of firearms are legally prohibited in the Capitol. The criminal privileges of defense and necessity excuse either activity when necessary to prevent great body harm or death. There is literally no inconsistency in the law here, except in your own fevered imagination.

You just made that entire bit up. You should be working for the WIGOP.

So if I discharge a gun inside the Capitol in an act of apparent self defense, I will be charged with......?

Curious George said...

"Allie's Apple said...
Meade again if that were a realistic task I would gladly do it."

Can you name any example of "during all the hottest debating last winter, it was unreliable and off air during times when it should've been broadcasting."?

Sorun said...

So if I discharge a gun inside the Capitol in an act of apparent self defense, I will be charged with......?

Probably nothing, though make sure you're defending yourself and not your mom. The Capitol Police are unpredictable on the latter.

Ann Althouse said...

@Sorun Nice avatar!

Ann Althouse said...

On the suggestion that the police should collect and store guns while you're in the Capitol...

I don't like this. For one thing, it's an expensive procedure and the police would need to secure those guns properly. I've seen throngs of protesters overwhelm the police at the Capitol. I wouldn't want a lot of guns there for the crazies to possibly get access to.

Second, if I were carrying a concealed gun, I would want that to be kept private. I think having to reveal to the world that I carry a gun would be an unwarranted intrusion, and it might endanger me. Even worse, I wouldn't want it to be made evident that I'm NOT carrying a gun.

Third, it's much better not having a security check going into the building. It was really unfortunate last winter when the protesters' antics led to the constriction of access. To bring that back just because some people are exercising their concealed carry right it ridiculous. A person bent on a shooting spree or assassination would have carried a gun into the Capitol without regard to whether it was legal to carry.

Sorun said...

@Sorun Nice avatar!

Thanks!

garage mahal said...

I wouldn't want a lot of guns there for the crazies to possibly get access to.

So let the crazies carry them in on their own. Brilliant!

You're so full of shit and you know it. If the legislators in charge thought for a second there were left wing crazies out to get them with guns they would not allow them. The fact they are allowing weapons in proves they aren't worried about it.

Shanna said...

So let the crazies carry them in on their own. Brilliant!

To carry concealed, you have to get approval, background check, maybe take a class on gun safety (depending on the state). All of that is designed to screen out the ‘crazies’.

Robert Cook said...

"Unless you see the entire, unedited video of a legislative proceedings, you might very well be getting fleeced by a partisan editor."

Of course, by prohibiting the use of cameras in the gallery, the government erases this "problem" entirely, as there is no video at all!

Rather like the police who will arrest citizens for filming them--"public servants," so-called--fulfilling their tax-payer funded public duties in public spaces, goverment bodies prefer to operate outside the eye of the public, as if they're doing something dirty.

I am not surprised that some here see citizens attempting to document the workings of our government--representing us--purportedly--as being some sort of disruptive elements, transgressing for the helluvit!

As for pressing for some sort of C-Span styled public access videotaping of state and local legislatures and other governing bodies--great! But will the taxpayers agree to pay for it? If they won't, who will? Why should private citizens not be permitted to make videos of public proceedings, with or without there being some sort of simultaneous official recording of the proceedings?

No wonder we don't have to formally announce that we're a police state: too many of our (loudest-mouthed) citizens are serfs by nature or acculturation, and are only too happy to allow the government they readily condemn as "too big" to black out public scrutiny of its doings, as they also condemn citizens exercising their rights as "disruptive" bums.

Sofa King said...

So if I discharge a gun inside the Capitol in an act of apparent self defense, I will be charged with......?


There are a number of possibilities.

There's 941.20, endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon. There's also 941.30, recklessly endangering safety and 947.01, disorderly conduct. There's also Madison City ordinance 25.06 banning the discharge of a firearm without permission. And of course, the big one: homicide or attempted homicide. Shooting a man dead is proscribed by any number of statutes.

Of course, there is one get out of jail free card (well two relevant ones, actually): 939.47, the privilege of necessity, and 939.48, the privilege of self-defense or defense of others. In both cases, these are statutory *exceptions* to any other criminal law, which outline special cases where other criminal laws do not apply.

Importantly, these exceptions are not specific to use of firearms, they are blanket exceptions. So, they apply just as much to taking photographs as they do to discharging firearms.

Now, in a clear-cut case, a savvy prosecutor would realize that there is very little or not possibility of prevailing on the charges to begin with, and you would likely not be charged.

Sofa King said...

I should add that those two exceptions are *affirmative* defenses, which means that once you are charged, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the circumstances of the exception apply to your case.

Sofa King said...

As for pressing for some sort of C-Span styled public access videotaping of state and local legislatures and other governing bodies--great! But will the taxpayers agree to pay for it? If they won't, who will?


Asked and answered already.

http://www.wiseye.org/AboutWisconsinEye/SupportUs.aspx

Your police state rhetoric is transparently silly. Full coverage of proceedings is already available. There may be reasons to argue for allowing photography and videotaping in the gallery, but providing public access is NOT one of them.

Methadras said...

So what's the issue? You can't use a camera because it's disruptive due to camera flush? Well, hell then, I wonder where they stand on muzzle flash?

Sofa King said...

Well, hell then, I wonder where they stand on muzzle flash?

Also disruptive, also banned. Make an original point please.

Shouting Thomas said...

No wonder we don't have to formally announce that we're a police state: too many of our (loudest-mouthed) citizens are serfs by nature or acculturation, and are only too happy to allow the government they readily condemn as "too big" to black out public scrutiny of its doings, as they also condemn citizens exercising their rights as "disruptive" bums.

Jesus, but you're an asshole Kookie.

Everybody was fine with this law when Democrats rules the legislature.

This is just an attempt to harass the legislature now that Republicans control it.

Robert Cook said...

"Everybody was fine with this law when Democrats rules the legislature."

Who is "everybody"?

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"Would you make this same complaint in reference to, say, the 1,800 ObamaReidPelosiCare exemptions handed out by Kathleen Sebelius?"

Sorepaw, would you elaborate? I'm not familiar with your reference.

Speaking more broadly, I would voice this same complaint about any efforts by the government--whoever the President or whichever party is in power--to black out public scrutiny of its doings.

Kirk Parker said...

In the days of flashbulbs (remember those?) I can see a ban on photographing inside the legislature. Not just a huge visual distraction, but very audible. And motion-picture film equipment is pretty noisy too.

But with current-generation digital photography, what's the issue? Just prohibit flash and other illumination, and simulated shutter sounds! What else is needed to preserve "decorum" as the legislators go about their work?

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.