"As a fundraiser, the Boosters contracted with Huntington Media Services to professionally videotape the competition, which could then be purchased. (Damerell Dep. 15, 33-34; Damerell Aff. ¶ 3; Larsen Dep. 113; Karl Hans Dep. 9-10; Nancy Hans Dep 10-11; Bumpass Dep 7.) As a result, no flash photography or videography was permitted during the competition.*fn6 (Damerell Dep. 12, 33; Karl Hans Dep. 9-10; Nancy Hans Dep 10-11; Bumpass Dep 7.) Tom Moupin, Northrop's show choir director, was the designated signatory on the contract. (Pl.'s Designation of Evidence. Ex. S.) Signs notifying spectators of this rule were posted at the admission table and on an easel at the end of the table; Larsen contends, however, that these signs were difficult to read. (Glock Dep. 8; Larsen Dep. 32-34; Baughan Dep. 9.) No signs about the rule were posted outside the school or on any exterior entrance door. (Larsen Dep. 32-34; Baughan Dep. 9, 15.)"Originally Posted by cyrus
So they already had someone that was hired exclusively to shoot the event and had signs posted all over that no video was allowed on account of the boosters having a deal to sell videos shot as a fundraiser. Then the guy who was arrested for fighting with the cops over his rights which is clearly stated here
"The volunteer then offered to refund Larsen's admission price, but Larsen claimed that he was experiencing almost like a "bait and switch". (Larsen Dep. 34.) He told the volunteer that since Northrop was public property he could videotape and photograph whatever he wanted. (Larsen Dep. 34.) The volunteer explained to Larsen that the event had hired a professional videographer and that he was free to buy a copy of the video; Larsen responded, "Well, we will see about that," and proceeded to walk toward the gymnasium, still carrying his video equipment. (Larsen Dep. 34, 37.)"
Okay Cyrus lets me see if I got this right.
The guy was at a private event at a private school building where they had signs posted stating that he could not do what he wanted to do and he then continued to do it anyway. Then later he lied to the police officer
"Larsen told Officer Glock that if he was being paid by the school, he had no authority as a police officer. (Glock Dep. 17.) He also questioned whether FWCS had obtained consent to videotape his daughter and sell the recordings. (Larsen Dep. 40-41.) Finally, Officer Glock told Larsen that he had to follow the rules regarding no videography, and if not, he would be arrested. (Larsen Dep. 40-41.) Larsen responded: "Well, you do what you think you have to do." (Larsen Dep. 41.)"
then when he thought he was certain on the law and pressed the school about it here
Once he confirmed that Damerell was indeed a school official, Larsen asked: "Maybe you can answer a question for me?" (Larsen Dep. 48.) Larsen then questioned Damerell about the no videography rule and whether the school had obtained releases from the performers, stating that he had not given such consent on his daughter's behalf. (Larsen Dep. 48-49.) Damerell stated that he did not know whether consents were obtained, and Larsen responded: "Well, it is my experience, in years of photography, that if you wish to videotape and sell a person's image, you need permission of anybody whose identifiable in that image before you sell it." (Larsen Dep. 48-49.) Damerell then suggested that the show choir application completed by the choir director probably provided the authorization, but Larsen stated: "My daughter is a minor and neither my wife nor I have signed any type of authorization. Certainly a show choir director doesn't have consent to authorize this on behalf of somebody else." (Larsen Dep. 49.)
Finally, Damerell suggested to Larsen that if he did not want his daughter to be videotaped, he could remove her from the competition. (Larsen Dep. 49; Damerell Dep. 38-39.) Larsen responded: "You are missing the point I am trying to make. Unless you have the consent and release of every performer here, you can videotape, but you can't sell them; otherwise you could face unforeseen consequences." (Larsen Dep. 49.) Damerell simply responded that he "look[ed] forward to hearing from [Larsen]" and then turned around and walked away. (Larsen Dep. 49.) Damerell states that during this interaction, which he describes as a "discussion", he never perceived Larsen as a threat to his or anyone else's safety and describes him as "argumentative". (Damerell Dep. 15, 17, 24, 26; Damerell Dep. 28, July 13, 2007.)
Seems to me he was told many times to not do it as there was someone that was videotaping it for a fundraiser and then he went about doing whatever he wanted and would not pull his daughter from the show and leave without incidence.
Yet amazingly he has no memory of what happened when he told the officers they could not make him do anything.
Once again this is about the act of photography being against the law. This is about videotaping, not photography. Non flash photography was permitted at this event. Also it is clear that their were signs posted stating why he could not videotape it (which were noble reasons) yet he felt he had the right to do and say anything he wished.
Also in the findings part C you can see that indeed his first amendment rights were not impinged upon
Moreover, concerning any claim Larsen may have that Defendants unconstitutionally restricted his right to "receive and record information", see Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Twp. of West Whiteland, 193 F.3d 177, 183 (3rd Cir. 1999), rather than simply restrict his expression, that too is unsuccessful. The restriction against videography did not "meaningfully interfere" with a spectator's ability to inform himself or herself about the show choir event. Id. That is, the rule prohibiting videography regulated the "manner" in which access by spectators occurred, not the spectator's underlying right of access to the event. Id. Spectators were free to attend the performance and gather information "by means other than by videotaping", including non-flash photography. Id. Accordingly, Larsen has failed to show that the restriction against videography at the show choir event violated his First Amendment rights. See D'Amario, 639 F. Supp. at 1543 (concluding that a public civic center's invocation of a "no camera" rule by request of the musical performer "sails past . . . scrutiny without difficulty"); see generally Carlow v. Mruk, 425 F. Supp. 2d 225, 247-48 (D.R.I. 2006) (collecting cases holding that "prohibitions on videotaping public meetings do not violate the First Amendment").
So what was the point of you using this case that is another case of the person was asked to leave and did not...
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks