Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is a political rally considered public? Does the 1st amendment really apply? I don't think so.... if said photographer has press credentials and approval, then they had the right to take that photo but that really isn't a 1st amendment issue.
Also... the term "Volunteer" doesn't relieve the individual's responsibility as a "Staff Member". It simply means they are not paid... but they still represent the organizers of the rally.
Touching or attempting to take equipment from a photographer is illegal.. btw... That equipment and the photos resulting is considered private property.
Case in point:
If I were trespassing to take a photo. The owner of the property cannot touch or take my equipment/film/photos. They can only ask me to leave. Even if the police show up to arrest me (been there done that), the police are to treat the equipment as evidence and cannot delete/destroy film/photos etc. Doing so with court order is tampering with evidence.
Furthermore... I know what the OP is trying to convey... but in the end, the article has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
btw.. I found this link to have a great summary of the rights of a photographer...
If someone did that to me while I was taking a pic while working, I'd shove them away. You have to defend yourself. How is that any different than watching a parade and someone is blocking my sight with their hands. It's about living your life unencumbered.
For the sake of argument, let's say where Congress and SCOTUS do an action/ruling that and both parties justify it by saying "Because of these variables, such a bill, act, or ruling doesn't violate the First Amendment". However, even when you count judicial interpretation, those actions do both legally and practically speaking violate the First Amendment. If we could go after members of Congress and SCOTUS for doing so, what would we charge them with?
Basically Trump is afraid of the free press. This is standard for autocrats world wide, nothing new here. Sad as this sounds, it is no longer all that shocking when this happens around Trump. He has normalized what was once unthinkable.
For the sake of argument, let's say where Congress and SCOTUS do an action/ruling that and both parties justify it by saying "Because of these variables, such a bill, act, or ruling doesn't violate the First Amendment". However, even when you count judicial interpretation, those actions do both legally and practically speaking violate the First Amendment. If we could go after members of Congress and SCOTUS for doing so, what would we charge them with?
Doesn't make sense...
Who determines actions do both legally an dpracrically speaking violate the first amendment...? You?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
