NH videographer broadcasts own arrest live

[gusto1978]

ok everyone watches this video Now my question is HOW can we get ridd of these laws! better yet Get ridd of those people!

[jjjooommm222]

good for that guy. There should be no barring of camera's in court absent the most unusual of circumstances in which prior restraint is called for. Even in these instances, recording should be allowed to be made and the media kept by the court untill the need for prior restraint has passed, i.e. injunction proves uneeded, even no longer a national security risk, privacy concerns no longer relevant/party consents to video, et cet.

Thanks for doing this the right way too, not yelling, fighting

[robertmike57]

We have only your word that there was no acceptable explanation why cameras were not allowed. On the other hand, I have never seen a reason why court proceedings in general can not be recorded, barring legitimate concerns such as security, ect.

[slickeronstate]

Loser.

[kungfuwookie]

yeah, comparing trying to legalize marijuana with Gandhi's work?

only a libertarian.

[msgfilms]

Yeah thats some bullshit. Ef those a-holes

[mmongo55]

i love the ghouls black outfit.. thinking he some sort of Gangsta.. joke

[genie0390]

courts bar recordings because they fear exposure of inept, outrageous, proceedings! if you keep people in the dark, you preserve power over them

[CoolHandLuke1970]

we need more people with that courage!

[turboredcart]

I dont see any ID. I dont see anyone harmed either. This man has not proven who he is- nor that he is harmed, nor that he is the owner of the land/venue. Secret police dont have IDs either. How would I know his capacity? This could even be a person in YOUR party and not of said "court". You can not violate yourself. Where is the irrevocable harm to the injured party? Also- "camera" can mean other things as well. A glass eye, could be deemed a camera, Eye glasses, too.,

[modelmotion]

This is just so wrong. Shame on the court.

[RP4409]

They took mine the other day... They don't want you to make a record.

azzholes

[flowerpt]

Dave has a brass set. Kudos to him.

Folks from other states can google "RSA 91-A" to see our sunshine law.

[P3rf3ctStorm]

May the freedom of the press win out in the end. By all rational (and dictionary) definitions of the "press", Dave fits the definition indisputably. The fact that the judge ordered a camera blackout of a PUBLIC trial is reason enough to have the judge removed from the bench. If he's also an attorney, the American Bar should step in and disbar him. He most definitely deserves it.

Btw, that was a very courageous action Dave. I sincerely hope that it will set a new precedent.

[wyomingliberty]

The story has been Dugg, the title is, Youtube videographer broadcasts own arrest live

[kmassabe]

What are they afraid of? The gov thugs.

[aqueousone]

I might owe apologies. I didn't see the extensive description for this video the first time I viewed it. (I'm sure I looked for it, hmm, lacking a technical excuse I'll have to just plead carelessness, so, apologies offered). I'm still a little bewildered by the attempt to connect Dave's actions to the 1st amendment, but then, I've already demonstrated how easily I get confused.

[somecomputergeek]

It IS confusing.

The first amendment is pretty clear, but there are so many local, state and federal statutes that limit it, for one reason or another. It is obvious that this limitation is not seen as a violation of the constitution by some, including many judges and lawyers.

However, the constitution was not meant to protect the rights of government officials. Just the opposite, it was meant to protect you and I FROM those government officials.

[PimPb1420]

Great job....show them you wont back down. We should get a group of people to show up with cameras....to make a point. then they will arrest us all.

[CurtHowland]

So many people follow, Ridley is LEADING.

In a large group, courage is easy. As an individual, courage is hard.

Getting arrested alone, that takes nerve.

Thank you, Dave.

[Michaelbos]

Shithead, I would have dopped the camera by accident while arresting you, oops

[FreeKeene]

He's a shithead for recording in a public place? You're sad.

[AnarchoJesse]

Dave is a goddamn hero.

[Josiah531]

God bless Dave. Thank you for your act of showing that bad laws are just bad. Wish I had the fortitude to be there with you brother.

[thechitowncubs]

Aqueousone: thats a little different than freedom of the press......

[aqueousone]

Is there a story here somewhere? I don't get it. Were you just trying to force some kind of confrontation for no reason other that to demonstrate how to force a confrontation. I don't know Dave, sometimes it just seems like since you can't find any real violation of your personal freedom, you have to antagonize some minor bureaucrat, Like standing on a train track and demanding the train stop because you have a right to stand where ever you want. I mostly support ya, but I'm often bewildered.

[somecomputergeek]

Being able to record the conduct of police and government employees might not seem like a valuable right to you, but it is one of the last safeguards we have. The first amendment states that there should be "no laws[s] abridging the freedom of the press". A law that prevents videotaping of the behavior of government officials IS such a law.

There are minor statutes and rules that pop up all the time that are unconstitutional. They MUST be challenged BY US, or the constitution means nothing.

[aqueousone]

And being able to record the conduct of police and public employees MAY very well seem a valuable right to me. I just didn't get what Dave was trying to show with this video. I hope you're not assuming, because I question Dave's process, that I disagree with his principle. I think he's oftentimes just rattling his chains and not addressing the real root of our slavery, but that's going to be a much bigger fight. And btw, are you suggesting youtube is 'the press'?

[somecomputergeek]

If there is some kind of LEGAL definition of the press that involves the SIZE of the the press or the amount of the money a press organization has or some kind of state-provided license, wouldn't that be a LAW "abridging the freedom of the press"?

YES, YouTube is "the press". The press is just PUBLISHED MEDIA, and YouTube fits this description.

Any other definition is arbitrary.

[aqueousone]

somecomputergeek: Well, that's certainly your opinion. I'm not sure how widely accepted that is. It seems to me youtube could be more accurately classified as 'posted' media than 'published' media. My definition of 'press' would include some kind of standards and accountability beyond just the posting of opinions available in this medium.

[somecomputergeek]

From my understanding, the term "publish" means to 'issue for public distribution'. "Posting" an opinion, as I understand it, is just one of many forms of publication. The media platform of choice is irrelevant, as well as any subjective "standards", which, if codified into law, are obviously "abridging" the freedom of the press.

Stalin had "standards", too. He was all in favor of "free speech", as long is was speech he agreed with.

[dmp1ce]

Wow, Nice job Dave!

[hpso12xu]

right on, brotha!

[highwaysong007]

It's going to kick off any minute now...cant you "feel" it? If we win, these people will be tried as criminals after its all over.

[dozer762]

wow he has balls

would any of us do that

we need to now more than ever

mad repect for you dave

[rancemuhamitz]

So much for freedom of the press! Scratch that one off the list!