Thursday, December 05, 2013

Dan Soucek in Deep Gap

Republican Party Chair Anne Marie Yates, that strategic genius behind the take-over of the Board of Elections, was running around telling everyone this evening that they couldn't film Sen. Soucek's public forum on education. So in the interests of full disclosure, we offer this surreptitious snapshot.

16 comments:

whatshisname said...

I guess that means she's learned her lesson ... kind of.

Anonymous said...

Was this not a public meeting rather than an invitation-only event? Is there some rule against video of public officials meeting with the public? WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE?!?!?

Anonymous said...

As per SCOTUS rulings, this was a designated public forum which could be limited as to public participation. It was nt a traditional public forum.

DooDah said...

It was a public meeting in a public place, to which any interested citizen was invited. What SCOTUS ruling are you referring to? What's your definition of a "traditional public forum"?

Anonymous said...

DooDah, as you seem to be unable to research anything for yourself, check these out.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/designatedforum.htm

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=13012

Anonymous said...

Our public, taxpayer-paid officers should not have been used to enforce this "no videotaping" rule unless Soucek was paying for their time out of his own pocket. He should also pay for the rental of the public facility in Deep Gap. You cannot use public resources and then blatantly violate the 1st Amendment Rights of the citizens who simply wanted be heard by their public official. These local and state wide Republicans are about as anti-American as you can get. I hear the Taliban analogy thrown around a lot. I think the Khmer Rouge is just as apt a comparison. Their first order of business was to kill all the professors and intelligentsia in Cambodia during their rise to power. The reasonably-minded and clear thinking people of NC and Watauga Co. need to vote this group out as soon as their terms are up.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you whiners take your cameras to the courthouse and film Superior Court Judge Ginn -(A Democrat by the way) as he conducts his PUBLIC BUSINESS in our PUBLIC BUILDING. Let us know how that works out.ntagot w

Bring your toothbrush!

Anonymous said...

I followed both links. Whether it was a limited public forum or not, there is nothing that prohibits the rights of individuals to video the event.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:39 AM
If you think these "police-state" tactics are acceptable from our publicly elected officials when they call for a "public-forum" on education, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth in order to justify your own stupid and blind partisanship. It's time for you to wake up from your Fox News stupor and critically think about the implications of Soucek's legislation and how he is communicating and interfacing with his constituents.

DooDah said...

Thanks for insulting me, Anonymous. YOU are the one who brought up the Supreme Court; I merely asked you which rulings YOU were referring to. I can't very well research what's going on in that head of yours, so I asked a simple question. As far as I can see from your link, a limited public forum would be a situation where a university, for example, provided conference rooms or spaces to be used by student groups only. In those cases, the use of the rooms can be limited to students only. I fail to see how this meeting with Soucek can be classified as a limited public forum. All of his constituents were invited to a facility that has been in used in the past for all kinds of public meetings. In any case, this meeting was not set up to exclude anyone, so why all the secrecy and worry about capturing it on video?

Anonymous said...

Um, Anonymous 10:39,as far as I know the courtroom is a public building, and anyone can go in and sit in the courtroom and watch the proceedings. Also, everything that happens in a court case is recorded by stenographers and becomes part of the pubic record, but only AFTER the cases are settled. It would not be a good idea to video and make public the proceedings of a court case BEFORE the case is settled.

Anonymous said...

DooDah, thee only point you have made is that you fail to see what is plainly written. Thanks for the admission.

DooDah said...

"DooDah, thee only point you have made is that you fail to see what is plainly written."

Well, in that case, since I'm so stupid, how about explaining it to me? Again, HOW does this meeting with Soucek qualify as a "limited public forum"? Does anyone ELSE on here have any idea what Anonymous is talking about?

Anonymous said...

If you could comprehend the links I gave you (which you could apparently not find for yourself), you would see why the meeting was a limited public forum.

To help you get started, who called for the meeting, DooDah? Was it an individual politician or a government body?

It is interesting that Williamson decide it was necessary to censor the reply to Anonymous 5:26. This post is very likely to receive the same fate.

DooDah said...

You just can't post without insulting someone, can you Anonymous? I read the information at the links you provided. So what? Does Soucek have the power to control every move of every person who comes to his forum? Why would he want to do that? Why even HAVE a forum in the first place? Why not just issue a press release? What's the problem with having a video of the meeting for the folks who weren't there?

Anonymous said...

No he does not have the power to control every move of those that attend a meeting he creates. He odes have the ability to determine the rules for the meeting. If those in attendance don't like the rules, they can leave.