Wisc. protesters arrested for filming lawmakers

In a video published to YouTube on Wednesday, several protesters in Madison, Wisconsin are seen being dragged out of the assembly by state police, seemingly because they were filming lawmakers’ deliberations. While the protesters repeatedly insisted that it was their right to film inside the legislature, their concerns were ignored as officers took them away.

Officers would seem to be acting on the guidelines of a notice posted outside the assembly, which says that all recording equipment is banned. That would seem to be in contradiction to Wisconsin law, which does give them the right to film lawmakers, although it makes an exception for “recording, filming or photographing such a meeting in a manner that interferes with the conduct of the meeting or the rights of the participants.”

How on earth can filming lawmakers' deliberations, which should be a matter of public record, be illegal? Is there any information anyone has found on these protesters disrupting the session that would have led to this?

Source

ETA: begin 1:53 in the video for the relevant information.

Huh? Why are they being arrested? Isn't this going to be public anyways????? If so, then why are they keeping a tight leash on those filmakers? I guess only the "sold out" MSM can film them.

What a way to start my day... a reminder that we live in a police state. How many cops can be crammed into one elevator? That dude was cuffed and clearly not resisting! We pay those thugs to abuse us, and it just makes me angry, until it makes me sad...

Apparently, from what I am finding, rights weren't the only thing injured in this assault on freedom....

Wisconsin Wire: State Troopers Arrest Protesters For Silently Filming, One Injured

His account of how he was injured....

A little while after Thi and CJ were taken to jail for silently filming, the Democrats asked the rule be suspended as it is clearly unconstitutional. Their motion was tabled, the blatant disregard for rights continued. Then came Jenna Pope (Batman) and I. They were very brutal in taking CJ and Thi out and I think the State Troopers were for Jenna as well. Apparently, rather than read my letter, Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs decided to instead harvest a violent atmosphere as everything that happened today could have been prevented by just heeding my warning. In fact, I even told Chief Tubbs in the letter that if things were not addressed and with utmost authority, they would escalate and they did.

So Jenna gets pulled out, apparently they made several rude remarks to her about not having a job (she actually does have one) and such. They then come to me, trying to capture the session so I can later report on it with video as a legitimate member of the press (you wouldn’t be reading this if I wasn’t). I inform them that the constitution trumps any Assembly rules and that I have every right to film. At this point a State Trooper (who will be named in the police report, didn’t get his name today) grabbed my arm and flung it back, prying my camera out of my hand making it illegally seized property therefore a Fourth Amendment rights violation as well, and threw it to the floor. With my arm still back and fully extended the officer grabs at my neck with full force causing excruciating pain and a very audible pop.

I reacted out of instinct and pushed my neck back as I was certain this was unlawful force. Now keep in mind, this type of event could be fatal. I have a heart condition that makes surges in adrenaline lethal. I am able to self control my adrenaline in most cases, but you never know when police violence is involved. Every police officer in the Capitol knows this and if not it is solely the fault of Chief Tubbs for allowing an officer to be in an arrestable position without them knowing the people they are arresting. Every member of the Capitol Police and pretty much every State Patrol officer who has so much as stepped foot in the Capitol this year knows the bulk of us by name. Every last one knows I have a heart condition. I was also wearing a leg brace from a visible injury where I tore some ligaments and probably the Miniscous as well in my knee. These officers knew this, in fact they acknowledged this by saying “Just let us do our job and we will try to not make your conditions worse”.

The fact is, however, based on the force that was used on my neck, had the officer succeeded in what he was trying to do (take me down to the floor from my chair by neck), my head would have hit the railing less than two feet away (talk about a cramped seat as well). Thankfully I managed to react in a split second and slow down my downward thrust enough to at least not hit the railing. We spent what seemed like hours probably just a minute or two with the troopers holding my arm fully extended and my neck, now throbbing in pain. Finally two Capitol Police officers who I would assume saw from the other gallery and realized something was wrong came through. These officers are named Hyatt and Ray. They deserve commendation as, had it not been for them, the baton would have likely been drawn. They stopped the State Patrol officer and assisted me on my Segway and downstairs. I was then booked and released at the Dane County Jail. The charge for silently filming OUR legislature? Disorderly Conduct, misdemeanor.

I later went to the hospital as the adrenaline of the moment lasted quite some time and the pain had sunk in full force. I can’t even move my neck without excruciating pain. The actions of the trooper caused a severe sprain of the neck and likely (although unable to tell yet) a torn tendon. I now have to walk around in a neck brace (to complement my knee brace I guess) and the pain is severe enough to warrant a drug regimen of Percocet and Valium. I don’t mind taking a hit for the greater good of all. This all could have been avoided...

Source

He does say "silently" filming.....

reply to post by DancedWithWolves


This is going to fall under people trying to record during Court proceedings. As much as I am for citizens rights, I have to agree with removing them from chambers for recording.

Unbelievable.....silent filming is now a crime??? First, you can't keep an audio recording of anything and know from the looks of it you can't film altogether....I hope the guy who got injured is ok and will sue the pants of those so-called STATE TROOPERS.

He should have told the officers that he had " Written permission signed by the governor to film".

....And then he should have handed them a copy of the state law allowing him to film.



Then, with all those multi-syllable words, the officers would have been stumped.

Cops are painfully, criminally ignorant of the "law" they are supposed to uphold.

Gee, maybe people should also ask why its illegal to record a movie with your cell phone in a theatre. You guys really need to get off the constitutional violation issues when you dont quite grasp how they work.

There is such a thing as rule of law, and the rule of law does not allow for people to do whatever they want.

Oh so the house session is copyrighted? Under what law would you remove them?

Talk about rule of law fyi:

Wisconsin State Statue 19.90 reads as follows:
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.

reply to post by PsykoOps


First the notice on the outside of the entrance into the area they were recording -

Source for info below

notice posted outside the assembly that said “for reasons of safety and decorum” movie/video/TV cameras, photography, cell phones or pagers, and laptops, etc, are banned.

Referencing this law - Wisconsin Statute 19.90

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.

Stemming from this law dating back to 1972 -
legis.wisconsin.gov...

Which states the same thing as the updated law.

In addition to their rules of the house -

Assembly Rule 26. Conduct in the chamber.

(1) The presiding officer shall preserve order, decorum, and quiet on and about the assembly floor during sessions.

(2) While the presiding officer is addressing the assembly or submitting a question, a member may not cross or leave the floor. While a member is speaking, a member may not walk between the speaking member and the presiding officer.

(3) A person may not read any printed newspaper on the assembly floor or in the visitor galleries while the assembly is in session.

(4) A person may not consume food on the assembly floor or in the visitor galleries.

(5) A person may not smoke on the assembly floor or in the visitor galleries.

(6)

(a) Except as provided in par. (b), a person may not use a 2-way mobile radio service, such as a personal communications service, or a 2-way mobile radio device, such as a cellular telephone, in the assembly chamber, other than in the offices of the speaker, majority leader, and minority leader, and in hallways.

(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to:

1. A member of the capitol police or a law enforcement officer.

2. The assembly sergeant at arms or a person acting at his or her direction.

3. A person authorized by motion of the speaker adopted by majority vote of the members present and voting.

4. The assembly chief clerk or a person acting at his or her direction.

5. A member in the parlor or lobbies.

(7) A person, other than a person specified in rule 25 (3), may not possess or use in the assembly chamber a microphone designed to pick up conversation more than 10 feet away from the microphone.

Constitutionality of that rule, not the law, is being questioned.

As i stated before, check up on the rules dealing with court room procedures and how cameras / recording devices are regulated in those settings.

Im not saying I agree with eaither. What I am saying is there are reasons for some of this that people just refuse to understand.



Resisting an arrest because you dont agree with the law, and then resisting the officers present, doesnt make the point at all, and actually become 2 seperate issues in legal terms since resisting an illegal arreest does not exempt a person from the resisting part.

They can challenege laws on legal grounds.

Challenging a law with the police, who have nothing to do with the laws inception or enforcement (see executive branch) makes as much sense as going after wonderbread for kids being fat.

Time and place in addition to the right setting and appropriate audience.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Thanks for the input, however I don't see how taping a meeting of the legislature is synonymous with recording a movie, as you suggested. They clearly seem to be in compliance with state law on this one...

Wisconsin State Statue 19.90 reads as follows:

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.

Source

Once again, it seems the Assembly considers itself above the law. Even by these standards though, these folks would seem to be in compliance.

But Assembly Rule 26 (7) states the following:

A person, other than a person specified in rule 25 (3), may not possess or use in the assembly chamber a microphone designed to pick up conversation more than 10 feet away from the microphone.

The exception listed in 25 (3) states:

Representatives of news media that regularly publish or broadcast reports available to the general public who are actively engaged in reporting the proceedings of the assembly, except that during the sessions of the assembly the privilege extends only to the designated press area.

But this group of citizens does just that; regularly publishing and broadcasting reports, as they did in May when a citizen was dragged out for doing the same thing. They have a total of 75 videos on their Youtube channel. They've been doing it since 2006.

They are part of the New Media and have as much rights as the Old Media.

Three more politicians spoke out with two democrats believing the citizens should be allowed to record and one republican stating they should not be allowed.

Then they all casted votes to see if the assembly rules could be suspended, but it was overwhelmingly voted down by almost two-thirds.

source

We face a real divide on this issue and why we are divided on what should be made available to the public - I find hard to comprehend.. Do citizens and citizen journalists have the right to record and report what goes on - on the floor - of our legislatures? If not...the real question, for me, is...why not?

Again, I appreciate the input.

reply to post by Xcathdra


So basically you are saying the house rules trump the Wisconsin State Statue? Since when?

reply to post by DancedWithWolves


Look at it from this way... The legislature is discussing a bill, and people in the room observing begin to record, and then post incomplete / inaccurate / patently false info from edited video, then reporting it as news.

With the surge of partisan polotics, its not out of the realm of possibility. Start adding it all on and now you have an elected body spending more time trying to deiospell rumors and flase info that doing the job of the people. Some legislation deliberations can be kept behind closed doors, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court, both at the FEderal and State levels.

An argument can be made for itnerfering in the Administration of Government, as I see this incident being built on that legal argument.

As I said, it was posted and is law. Arguing with the police is about as useful as fighting with a cow while fishing. It doesnt serve a purpose for the goal to make the change.

Entering an area of legislation / Court proceedings (the well of the house / courtroom) does curtail a persons rights while present in that area. Its based on the legal argument that your rights end the moment they interfere with others.

For one the act of recording something and the act of publishing something are two entirely seperate things. Of course they could, might, possibly... There is laws in place if they find something has been published that misrepresents the subjects.
Just cause someone might do something does not crime a make.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

So basically you are saying the house rules trump the Wisconsin State Statue? Since when?

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

Uhm, re read the info. The State Law is what allowed the house rule.

Its the same situation with court proceedings, where laws are set governing what occurs in the court house during hours of operation and while in offical order.

From those laws, Cheif Judges / Administative judges (Supervisors so to speak) are allowed to establish criteria based on those laws, including the prevention of media access, as well as audio and video recording while in open session.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
For one the act of recording something and the act of publishing something are two entirely seperate things. Of course they could, might, possibly... There is laws in place if they find something has been published that misrepresents the subjects.
Just cause someone might do something does not crime a make.

Correct.. However, as I have stated time and again, your "Rights" are not absolute in certain places, and your "rights" end the moment they interfere with the rights of others.

Walk into a court room, or the well of the Congress, and start yelling at them to exercise your 1st amendment right and watch what happens.

The laws / rules are in place to prevent it from occuring, and not designed for after the fact. Its no different than going to a business in a state that allws conceal and carry permits. Private businesses can prevent you from entering their property, since the law ends on private property.

In this case, it was posted they could not record, and opted to do so anyways. The info also talks about media being exempted from the law and rule, however from the article I posted it looks like 2 members of the media met the same problem as these people.

It still doesnt make the law illegal, or the actions of the officers illegal.

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
Do citizens and citizen journalists have the right to record and report what goes on - on the floor - of our legislatures? If not...the real question, for me, is...why not?

Again, I appreciate the input.

Give me sometime to find the Supreme Court ruling, but they have started taking up cases dealing with "citizen journalists" and so far, from Federal Appeals Court rulings, they are making a distinction between credentialed journalist and private citizen.

essentially they are refining what is considered a member of media, and what those requirements are to be considered a member of media.

N.J. court rules blogger is not protected under shield law in porn company defamation case - The ruling states journalistic protections are not extended to certain groups no meeting established criteria.

Mitchell Vs. Washington state D.O.C. - Request for electronic records

Kevin Mitchell made a Public Records Act (PRA) request to the
Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) and asked for the requested records to be
disclosed electronically. The DOC responded that it would not disclose the records electronically
because redactions would be necessary to protect information that was exempt from disclosure.
Mitchell filed suit claiming that the agency (1) improperly denied access to records without
providing an exemption statement, and (2) was required to disclose the records electronically.
The trial court ruled in favor of the DOC on both claims. We reverse and remand to the trial
court on Mitchell’s first claim, holding that the DOC violated the PRA by failing to provide an
exemption statement with its response denying access to the records in part. We affirm on
Mitchell’s second claim, holding that the DOC was not required to disclose the records
electronically. We award attorney fees on appeal to Mitchell for that portion attributable to theclaim on which he prevailed.

These are just 2 rulings that are in conflict that will be going up the line. Federal courts will be seeing an influx of challeneges from citizens towards state governments about recording, redactions, pre-offical bills language / documentation, who voted for waht in closed sessions without disclosing the topic voted on, the ability of media to print juriors names, and in this case, what / who is considered media, and who is protected by media guarantees under the US Constitution.

Its going to be interesting to see how the Constitution changes with the full onslaught of the Digital / Cyber age. Some interesting questions / points are being raised.

One of them from above is how does an entity properly redact and offical document in electronic form? The reason the question is there is because the electronic version is offical, you cant simply just delete the word from the record.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by DancedWithWolves

 

Look at it from this way... The legislature is discussing a bill, and people in the room observing begin to record, and then post incomplete / inaccurate / patently false info from edited video, then reporting it as news.

With the surge of partisan polotics, its not out of the realm of possibility.

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?

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.

You know you can buy glasses with a camera in the frame and nobody would ever know you are recording them.

Kids weren't smart.

To fight politicians they could have "silently" recorded dirt on the politicians, then threw it up on YouTube anonymously.


Must be some Mason's kids making a scene to get a big free payout from taxpayers dimes.