« Too many unforced errors led to McClellon resignation | Main | More details on Real ID »

22 December 2015

Comments

Jay Furst

Merry Christmas and peace on Earth.

Chris Lee

Poor Jay Furst.

Im sure all the reporters from his little rag all say "How High?" When he tells them to jump.

It must have been traumatic for you... to have someone say no to you. Poor delicate snowflake.

Clearly it was the highlight of your event, as I'm yet to see you say much of anything about what was actually discussed, just you whining about some gun nut telling you he was going to film, against your wishes.

Now you'redesperately searching for a different library that you can show to justify your 100% unconstitutional position?

I see this has been explained to you a few times, perhaps you're too arrogant to understand it, as it would require you to actually respect a constitutional right you disagree with, but here goes nothing. ..

1. Librarys are public places.
2. You had public officials present.
3. The meeting was open to the public.

Now you keep harping on the libraries policy, which is about USING THE PHOTOS,they can't limit your right to take them.

Photography is not a crime, and neither is hurting your feelings.

Kevin Vick

Jay, you now attempt to distract from the argument through a change of venue. Your public meeting was held at the Rochester Public Library, a public space with a public servant, Senator Norton, in attendance. When you hold the same meeting at the Lakeville Library, let me know. As Bryan points out, it shouldn't be a problem recording video there either.

"But to say it's public property, a public building, I can do whatever I want is simply not true." - Jay Furst Who said that Jay? I'm not seeing it in this thread. I certainly didn't say that. Perhaps it's another attempt by you to distract through hyperbole?

Jay, you excoriated Diana Friemann in your December 4th piece, "Furst Draft: Don't tell a reporter not to attend a public meeting "for telling you that you weren't welcome to report on her public meeting. You now claim a citizen, me, can't report on your public meeting. To use your words, "... that's not the way a public meeting works."

Bryan Strawser

Well, that's interesting, because one of our volunteers filmed a public event held at the Dakota County Library in Eagan, MN the evening before your event in Rochester.

Dakota County's ordinances do not prohibit filming on library premises.
Dakota County Library's published rules do not prohibit filming on library premises.

We had no issues filming this event (which was, again, open to the public and featured public officials).

I'm still not sure why this appears to be such a big deal, when Rep. Norton made numerous factual mistakes in her discussion at this forum that influence public opinion, yet I do not see the same zeal in ensuring that information is corrected.

Example: Exploding Bullets.

Jay Furst

On a lark, I called the Dakota County library in Lakeville to check their policy on allowing videotaping or photography in the library. I was told there'd certainly be some restrictions or permission involved but my call was passed along, then passed along, and I talked to an official at the central office, who told me if library staff was videotaping or shooting pics, they'd certainly get permission from those involved, and if a guest or group wanted to videotape an event at the library, there'd certainly be a process to go through for permission. The top guy in charge wasn't available, so that's where my extra effort ends.
But to say it's public property, a public building, I can do whatever I want is simply not true.

Mitchpberg

"I'll take your compliments now for doing this on a monthly basis for 10 years."

Kudos! Would that the Strib did it as well!

BTW - how would you, as a reporter, respond to a request to leave your notebook at the desk at a public meeting, but don't worry, you'll be given a transcript later?

But you do see our concern, right? Rep. Norton has been doing her best to control what gets heard in this debate, leading up to a session where she is going to be serving as Michael Bloomberg's bag-woman in the Legislature. The mainstream media in this state is either ill-informed about Second Amendment issues, or actively in the bag for gun control, so it's a fertile audience for Norton's manipulation.

And Merry Christmas to you as well.

Bryan Strawser

I hope your column in the paper recognizes that the library rules do NOT prohibit videotaping, despite what has been claimed here (and elsewhere).

I look forward to the ongoing dialogue.

Thanks,
Bryan

Jay Furst

Robdoar: You're "relatively certain" about that, hmm? You're welcome to join us next time (of course -- anyone is welcome, including those carrying guns with permits, at the library) so you can form opinions and comments on this based on first-hand knowledge.

Based on all this dialogue, I'm planning to post this column in the paper with some of your feedback.

Leaving all this aside -- merry Christmas.

Kevin Vick


"And as previously noted -- I didn't care if Vick did tape it." - Jay Furst

If that's the case Jay, why devote over half your blog to the subject? Jay, why should I be required to explain a citizen's right to record a public event held in a public venue to you, of all people, the Managing Editor of the Post-Bulletin?

Robdoar

And neither you or the other commenters are addressing the issue, why was it so important to tape the meeting when the library asked Kevin not to and it was already being videotaped?

I have addressed it multiple times.

There are a myriad of reasons why having one's own footage is important and useful. His reasons and your lack of understanding is irrelevant. He has the right to, and he did so, seemingly without much incident. (except "borderline rude" which I'm relatively certain based on this conversation, and your reactions, means he just said "No" to your request")

Jay Furst

Mitchpberg: Fair question about the panel, and again, I'll assume you weren't there or haven't watched Kevin's replay...

We've been doing these events monthly for 10 years. They're informally organized and informally conducted. We have a few people at the head table who know something about an issue in the news -- might be newsmakers, might be just people with a particular insight or perspective. It's not a presidential debate. And generally, nobody makes speeches. The goal is to get the audience engaged, they ask the questions and people answer them.

We certainly didn't cover every possible angle on gun violence (the topic -- not gun rights, gun control, but the recent violence with guns and what can be done about it). That said, Duane Quam was described as "pro-gun" by Bryan's group (which describes Norton as "anti-gun"), so we aspired to some political balance.

But again -- it's not "Meet the Press" and it's not a debate. It's an informal Q & A wth the public, and I'll take your compliments now for doing this on a monthly basis for 10 years.

Mitchpberg

"why was it so important to tape the meeting when the library asked Kevin not to and it was already being videotaped?"

Because tapes disappear.

Not sure how long you've followed Second Amendment issues, Jay, but those of us who've been involved for a while have learned the value of having our own copies of things.

Mitchpberg

Jay,

Noted!

However, that brings up another question:

"we organized the doggone event"

And when you did, you put Rep. Norton up against...not Andrew Rothman, Joe Olson, Bryan Strawser or Rob Doar, the leaders of this state's Second Amendment Human Rights movement, but Gene German. A great guy, an excellent instructor, but hardly anyone's choice as the face and voice of the "opposition".

Given that several of the above-mentioned offered to appear and were rejected, I have to ask - someone who isn't fundamentally given to trust the media might look at that and say "the RPB gave Rep. Norton veto power over the panelists".

So there's a question: why did the RPB go straight to the horse's mouth and book Rep. Norton for the discussion, but find a - let's be honest - rather obscure Second Amendment supporter to speak for the opposition?

Jay Furst

He was borderline rude to me and I won't speak for library staff. Again, later, he was civil. And neither you or the other commenters are addressing the issue, why was it so important to tape the meeting when the library asked Kevin not to and it was already being videotaped?

Kevin Vick

I was asked by no less than four people including Jay, the author of this blog, and law enforcement, not to videotape the subject meeting. First, I was told that recording the event was against policy. When that didn't work, I was told I had to have the library's permission to use the recording. Regardless of the policy, it doesn't override civil rights.

Which other civil rights would Jay suggest a citizen surrender to policy? I would expect the Managing Editor of the PostBulletin to know better than to tell a anyone they can't record public meetings in public places.

Robdoar

Was Kevin a jerk to you specifically? Or was he simply firm in his assertion of his rights?

There is a difference.

Jay Furst

Chipster and friends, you're making my point.

chipster

Jay Furst wrote: "What I am saying is, most people would say, 'You know? That's not a reasonable policy but I'll put away my camera'."

And that's the kind of people Kim Norton and others adore: submit and obey.
Your expectations of people are obtuse. I am not "most people," and I would presume my colleagues who share my sentiments, are not even close to passive when (multiple) rights are called into question.

The stern denial of a request does, not equal a violation of law or others' rights.

Jay Furst

Mitchpberg: Not sure what you mean about preventing Norton's message from getting out -- we organized the doggone event! We promoted it heavily, I'm writing about it right now, we had the story on the front page the next day -- and AGAIN, it was videotaped by the library. I need to find that link and promote it.

And as previously noted -- I didn't care if Vick did tape it. I was surprised that the library had that policy. When they told me about their policy, however -- and they said that the guy in the front row was more or less being a jerk and was going to tape it anyway -- I talked to him again. He repeated his intention to tape it and we let it go. The end. He taped it. Hope he and others found some value in it (and compared and contrasted with the library version).

FYI, he also contributed a comment during the Q & A with the audience, which was relevant and on topic, and we had a pleasant word after the meeting.

Robdoar

Did Kevin "gain necessary permissions"?
In photography you have to gain permission to USE someone's image . That's what the policy is referring to.

Since Kevin was simply documenting public activities, there is no "use". The supreme court has ruled multiple times that photographing in public (especially public officials) is a 1st amendment right.

You seem hurt that he didn't acquiesce to your request. I'm sorry that upset you, but unfortunately in a free society, we have to tolerate those who exercise freedoms we don't agree with.

Mitchpberg

"it wasn't a government meeting and again -- frankly? -- this kind of thing would only come up at a meeting on gun rights. "

There are a lot of unique aspects to this issue.

For example: I doubt Kim Norton routinely blocks every single person that disagreed with her from her Facebook and Twitter feeds on any issue other than the 2nd Amendment. Rep. Norton has gone to pretty amazing lengths to ensure her "conversation about guns" is a monologue in an echo chamber. Her command of the facts of the issue is deeply questionable, and I can't imagine why you, a journalist, would want to prevent that fact from getting out.

Just curious, Jay - why would you want to prevent Mr. Vick from (unobtrusively) taping the event?

Bryan Strawser

Jay writes: "Did Kevin "gain necessary permissions"? I assume not...I'm not sure how he would...and I'm not defending the library policy -- it's their policy. What I am saying is, most people would say, "You know? That's not a reasonable policy but I'll put away my camera," especially since the meeting was being videotaped. Instead, Kevin was prepared to make this a federal case over both the First and Second Amendments, as far as I can tell."

The policy states that Kevin needs to gain necessary permissions to use the photos (I assume they intended this to be footage as well) - which would be for a commercial use. This statement, as Rob says, also allows the Library to wash their hands of the permissions / rights issue at stake here.

My issue with this post and line of discussion is that there's a claim that the library policy prohibits videotaping, which is clearly not true. It's stated quite clearly in their policies that videotaping is allowed.

If you want to take issue with the fact that you asked Kevin to stop videotaping, and he refused, that's a totally different issue and one that you'll need to take up with Kevin.

Jay Furst

Did Kevin "gain necessary permissions"? I assume not...I'm not sure how he would...and I'm not defending the library policy -- it's their policy. What I am saying is, most people would say, "You know? That's not a reasonable policy but I'll put away my camera," especially since the meeting was being videotaped. Instead, Kevin was prepared to make this a federal case over both the First and Second Amendments, as far as I can tell.

Robdoar

every public building has its own policies,
Sure, and this one says, "Hey you can video, as long as you don't interfere with library business. If you want to use the video for something, you're on your own, it's not our problem"

it wasn't a government meeting
A public meeting with government officials, you're splitting hairs.

That said, it's the policy, the library was taping it and Kevin was borderline rude and arrogant about his right to do as he pleased.

We'll hes right. It's his right to film, and he was even within the library's written policy. There's nothing rude about asserting your right. You had every right to ask him not to film, and he had every right to deny your request.

Bryan Strawser

So the policy as I posted, and as you posted, allows videography if it does not interfere with the delivery of library services.

How was Kevin's videotaping interfering with library services? Was he informed he was interfering with the delivery of library services?

Bryan

The comments to this entry are closed.