Wisc. protesters arrested for filming lawmakers

I'm curious if they have metal detectors here at this building, because they are really inviting disaster if they keep up these gestapo actions... If this kind of thing happens enough and they p'ss off the wrong guy, it will end up getting a lot folks killed..

I mean, some violently angry individual could go in there seeking revenge and toss a couple grenades or homemade C-4 bombs at these idiots..

Things like this have already happened before, but it can only get worse if they keep on treating people like this...

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
uh isnt this called "freedom of speech"?

Republicans across the nation should be outraged, as they are always talking about personal responsibility. How come these Republicans dont want to be filmed and have to answer for their actions?

Actually no its not, and this highlights the point I made arlier with the perception, which is incorrect, by some on what their rights are, and what they think they are.

You have the right to speech... You don't have a right to walk into a crowded theatre and yell fire. You have every right while on private property, say walmart, or even your neighbors land, to say whatever you want, and the people who own / manage that land can ask, then tell, and then force you to leave their property if they don't like what your saying, or the manner you are saying it in.

Walk into court while its in session, or a city council meeting, or the well of your state legislature, and begin yelling, or even questioning the people present. You have the right to do that, and they have a right to ask, then tell you to stop, eventually being able to arrest and forcibly remove you from that area.

Your actions at that point is interfering with the administration of justice / government operations.

There are times and places where you are able to challenge a judge, or police officer, or govenor, president, legislature, etc etc etc. The smart thing to do would be to know when that time is, and take advantage of it.

As I said, there is the rule of law, and it does NOT extend to people being able to just do whatever the hell they want.

If you dont beleive that, then go into a theatre, court or legislative / city council session and begin interupting them and see what happens.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Wisconsin State Statue 19.90:
Use of equipment in open session. Whenever a governmental body holds a meeting in open session, the body shall make a reasonable effort to accommodate any person desiring to record, film or photograph the meeting. This section does not permit recording, filming or photographing such a meeting in a manner that interferes with the conduct of the meeting or the rights of the participants.

This still applies. Embhasis mine for clarity.

edit on 15/9/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)

A valid defense except for one thing - Care to explain what an open session is under the rules and regulations for the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin?

Is it any open meeting?
When the entire senate is in session?
When the entire House is in session?

when BOTH houses are in session?
When a committee of either beanch is in session?
When a joint committee of both branches is in session?

How many members of each branch must be present for it to be considered an open session?

Here is a partial discussion about what is considered an open meeting -
General idea from previous legislation

66.77 Open meetings of governmental bodies. (1) In recognition of the fact that a
representative government of the American type is dependent upon an informed
electorate, it is declared to be the policy of this state that the public is entitled to the
fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is
compatible with the conduct of governmental affairs and the transaction of
governmental business. The intent of this section is that the term "meeting" or
"session" as used in this section shall not apply to any social or chance gathering or
conference not designed to avoid this section.
(2) In this section:
(a) "Closed session" means any meeting not an open session.
(b) "Meeting" means the convening of a governmental body in a session such that
the body is vested with authority, power, duties or responsibilities not vested in the
individual members.

(c) "Governmental body" means a state or local agency, board, commission,
committee, council or department created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule or
order; a municipal or quasi-municipal corporation; or a formally constituted subunit of
any of the foregoing.
(d) "Open session" means a meeting which is held in a place reasonably accessible
to members of the public, which is open to all citizens at all times, and which has
received public notice............................

Now with the above being said, you arent able to use your defense to account for the public notice that was posted in areas accessible by the general population that prohibits the use of recording devices.

The next question would be to find out why that was posted on this day, which may lead us to the answer on whether this was considered and open meeting or not.

Not everything is sinister or an attack on freedoms....

We should find all of the answers before going down that road dont you think? If anything it allows people to make an informed decision on the information, so they don't get the wrong info and take something out of context.

Sound familiar?

By definition of law it was an open meeting.

The body must first convene in open session.
A member of the body must move that the body convene in closed session, stating the nature of the business to be considered in closed session.

Wisconsin open meetings law

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
uh isnt this called "freedom of speech"?

Republicans across the nation should be outraged, as they are always talking about personal responsibility. How come these Republicans dont want to be filmed and have to answer for their actions?

Actually no its not, and this highlights the point I made arlier with the perception, which is incorrect, by some on what their rights are, and what they think they are.

You have the right to speech... You don't have a right to walk into a crowded theatre and yell fire. You have every right while on private property, say walmart, or even your neighbors land, to say whatever you want, and the people who own / manage that land can ask, then tell, and then force you to leave their property if they don't like what your saying, or the manner you are saying it in.

Walk into court while its in session, or a city council meeting, or the well of your state legislature, and begin yelling, or even questioning the people present. You have the right to do that, and they have a right to ask, then tell you to stop, eventually being able to arrest and forcibly remove you from that area.

Your actions at that point is interfering with the administration of justice / government operations.

There are times and places where you are able to challenge a judge, or police officer, or govenor, president, legislature, etc etc etc. The smart thing to do would be to know when that time is, and take advantage of it.

As I said, there is the rule of law, and it does NOT extend to people being able to just do whatever the hell they want.

If you dont beleive that, then go into a theatre, court or legislative / city council session and begin interupting them and see what happens.

Funny how you removed what I had quoted you as saying. For your recollection, you said that it would be a bad thing if they took some video, made some comments about it and put it on youtube. You thought this was a bad thing, apparently.

I said it was freedom of speech to post videos with whatever you want as commentary on youtube. However, nice dristraction of the argument.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
By definition of law it was an open meeting.

The body must first convene in open session.
A member of the body must move that the body convene in closed session, stating the nature of the business to be considered in closed session.

Wisconsin open meetings law

Right, what im saing though was the gathering at the time an "open meeting" or was it a gathering of officals that werent called to order. I have not seen the status in any of the articles that answers that question.

WOML applies to every "meeting" of a government body whose purpose is to engage in government business if the number of members is sufficient to determine the government body's cause of action. If at least one-half of the government body is present at the meeting, the meeting is presumed to be for engaging in government business. Wis. Stat. § 19.82 (2). The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that a gathering of less than one-half of the members of a body may constitute a "negative quorum" (sufficient to block action on a particular matter) and may also be subject to WOML.

You mean this? Or do you mean that were they just hanging there without talking government business or something?

Originally posted by PsykoOps

WOML applies to every "meeting" of a government body whose purpose is to engage in government business if the number of members is sufficient to determine the government body's cause of action. If at least one-half of the government body is present at the meeting, the meeting is presumed to be for engaging in government business. Wis. Stat. § 19.82 (2). The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that a gathering of less than one-half of the members of a body may constitute a "negative quorum" (sufficient to block action on a particular matter) and may also be subject to WOML.

You mean this? Or do you mean that were they just hanging there without talking government business or something?

The legislative assembly at the time was in 1 of a few possible status.

Not called to order, which means its not an offical meeting (no quorum / no offical business being discussed).

or

Called to order, which means the actions they (legislature) are engaged in are offical.

or

Invovled in a committe session / other session covered.

Example - A long time ago I worked for a small city (4 city council members and a mayor / city manager). The way the law works in my state at the time (Missouri) if 3 of those members were say at one house watching football, and they started to discuss city business, its technically a violation of the open meetings law here, because 3 people are a quorum.

In this instance with Wisconsin, we know the people were recording, and that legislatures were present. What we dont know is whether or not the legislature was in an offical session or not.

If the legisltaure was in session, then I would say the people have a case to challenge the actions (although it was posted they couldnt do what they are doing). If the legislature was not in session, it doesnt constitute an open meeting, which means the people recording did violate the law / notice.

Thats why im curious of the status of the legislature at the time.

reply to post by aching_knuckles


I quoted you, and since my post is already present, I didnt feel like breaking the T and C about excessive quoting of long posts.

It was not a distraction technique in the least, and is still releveant to the discussion. Posting something is fine, however the manner in which is was gathered is something else entirely.

I brought up the example of youtube was to show an argument could be made that by posting inaccurate / incorrect information purposely, and argument could be made for interference in government operations.

Of course its a long shot, but weirder things have happened.

Posting video on youtube is not illegal (until a damaged party locates it along with other criteria). Talking in a theatre is not illegal.

However, when you take the totality of cirumstances, the picture changes and can run afoul of laws.

American system is confuzzling but I dig up this: calendar. However I just noticed that they've changed the video. What I saw was a totally different perspective and longer I think. Didn't have intro text etc. and I even posted a comment on it in youtube. However now my channel page doesn't display the comment, doesn't show my thumbs up for the video either. At least in that version while these people were removed the session was halted. They were definately in session in that one.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
American system is confuzzling but I dig up this: calendar. However I just noticed that they've changed the video. What I saw was a totally different perspective and longer I think. Didn't have intro text etc. and I even posted a comment on it in youtube. However now my channel page doesn't display the comment, doesn't show my thumbs up for the video either. At least in that version while these people were removed the session was halted. They were definately in session in that one.

Not necessarily... If its a committee meeting, it can still be closed to the public, depending on topic. For the time being ill give your post the benefeit of the doubt and will go with it being in an offical, open general session.

If thats indeed the case then yes, the actions of the police / legislatures involved should be looked at.

The order posted prohibiting recording also needs to be looked at, as well as state law, to determin if its not a violation of Wisonsin Constitution / Law.

It wasn't closed to the public that's for sure since only the ones with cameras were outed. Rest of the public stayes there. Also this:

Fortunately, Mark Radcliffe, a democrat, understood that they work for the people, not the other way around. And called for a vote to suspend the assembly rules.

“If they want to sit there silently and videotape us, maybe we would all behave a little bit better.

"I represent a municipal village in Jackson County, Wisconsin and I preach as a village attorney the importance of open government and getting people to participate in the process.

"And by having those people removed from this body, it precludes them from participating in this process. We may be their elected representatives, but they should have the right to sit in this body and tape what we do.

“I would ask the members of this body to suspend the rules and allow people to videotape these proceedings.”

Source

Isn't there a transcripts of these meetings somewhere?

reply to post by PsykoOps


Interesting....

as far as transcripts go, again we would need to know what type of session was going on at the time.

We can poke around the Wisonsin State website to see if and when it will be posted. Worst case scenario it can be obtained by a FOIA request.

This is why there will NEVER be a peaceful ammending of the government. These people are just plain scumbags. I would have at least a tad bit of respect if they had the balls to get their hands dirty and take it upon themselves to throw them out. Instead the @$$hole troopers are clueless that they're nothing more than slaves, controlled by a bunch of physically inferior nerdy douchebags.

It's time to restore the natural order of things and let nature's design reign once again. Only the strong survive. F##k the rest of this useless humanity,and all the fed and state agencies who do nothing but suck up earth's valuable resources while controlling a brainwashed society. God I can't wait for it all to implode and watch the tables turn to see the expression of reality on everyone's faces.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I don't know where to look but found this spotlight that says it was the next floorperiod and also that few new guys were sworn in. I'm actually not that sure what a floorperiod is to begin with. It had to be something cause there was regular media in there. You can see them on the media area which is at the opposite of the public area. The orignal longer footage actually showed shots from there as the police came out to take these guys out.

A violation of civil rights, once again. I believe these people have a strong court case with the right lawyer.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
A violation of civil rights, once again. I believe these people have a strong court case with the right lawyer.

/rolls eyes.....

Explain and support with sources please....

Im really a nobody that just studied the law and the court system. Mostly I have found that the worse the "infringements" of a person's rights the more obfuscated the law is written. I wont go in here claiming anyone was right or wrong "legally"

Morally: were the laws or police right or wrong? That is the real question.

The police and judges will say that they were justified with some legal jargon and point to some statute "proving" it in their court.

I know the only "right" you have in law is the "Right to remain silent" and only the policemen themselves can grant it.
The law is for you and me and thats it. Not the lawmakers or enforcers of said law.

I am always reminded that "EVERYTHING Hitler did was LEGAL"

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
A violation of civil rights, once again. I believe these people have a strong court case with the right lawyer.

/rolls eyes.....

Explain and support with sources please....

Xcat, I've told you before, you're a good guy... so why do you feel the need to stand up for bad guys? You gotta shake that whole brotherhood mentality bro.


And what happened to your avatar?

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Im not defending as mcuh as I am pointing out that the thought process by some that their rights are absolute regardless of where they are at is incorrect. People alsohave a tendancy to immediately invoke the Federal argument, when its not even part of the issue.

That being said, we still dontknow, offically (as I was tlaking with Psyops about) what status the legisltaure was in (open session / closed session / not in session / committeee meetings etc. Wh have a transcript of a guy wanting to postpone the session but again it doesnt give us the answer we need to correctly interpret the application of the law in question.

The mindset by some in this manner, is that regardless of location, they have an absolute right to record something. The problem is, not all government locations are considered public property (another argument for another time). It would be no different than a person walking into a court room, in session, and recording it. The judge can, and ive seen cases where the person was arrested for refusing to stop, stop and punish those who ignore the posted orders saying no.

there is a difference when you are dealing with the cops and recording events, and being in a place where offical business fo the government / people is taking place.

People have a tendency to only learn that freedom of speech is located within the 1st amendment, and thats it. They ignore the refinement of that amendment when dealing with public safety and official proceedings, which courts and government bodies in session are officla proceedings.

My question is, the sign was posted - no recording in this area, and the people present ignored it. Would it not have behooved them to check with some who is knowedgeable on why it was posted, instead of ignroing it and forcing the encounter?

As I told Psyc - giving the benefiet of the doubt, the removal should not have occured. However, it needs to be looked at to determine why its in place in the first place.

I would wager that one possibility is for security concerns. The same reason photography is not permitted on military installations, certain parts of an airport, etc etc etc. the paranoia factor that a person would be able to photo the area to plan an attack.

Emergency exits are here, here and here, so we need to block them prior. The security patrols come through here here and here at this, this and this time. They arent armed. On the floor you can see where the senior leadership is usually at, thereby allowing for choice trageting, etc etce tc - you get the idea.

It comes back to balancing freedom and security.
As a side note - I clenaed out my ATS folders since it was a discombobulated mess. Plus the Avatars were poorly done (not my best area). Clean it all up and am working on a new avatar.