The paragraph below says there isn't a specific law pertaining to public meetings but it says that being in public means you can be recorded. The group had the recording devices in the open as they should have so that it was known that he was being recorded. The other issue is that there was an unlawful seizure of property.
"Even when no state open meetings law affirmatively gives you the right to record, many state statutes permit the recording of speeches and conversations that take place where the parties may reasonably expect to be recorded. If you are attending a meeting that is open to the public, it is likely that the people running a meeting or giving a speech should reasonably assume that they might be recorded. However, you should always take reasonable steps to make clear that you are recording. Concealing your camera or recording equipment is not a good idea."
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
The first 14 words of that paragraph you quoted says it all.The first paragraph I have quoted is what Ohio laws are on recording of public meetings.
While the Ohio open records law does not specifically state whether you can use recording devices at a public meeting (i.e., a meeting of a governmental body required to be open to the public by law), the Ohio Attorney General has an issued an opinion stating that using them is permissible when it does not unduly interfere with the meeting. As a matter of practice, recording devices apparently are common in Ohio public meetings.
This one is from the paragraph on the same page as the one you quoted right above the one you quoted.
At least one court has held that there is no federal constitutional right to make a video recording of an open meeting, at least not when other methods are available for compiling a record of the proceeding, such as written and stenographic notes or audiotaping. Whiteland Woods, LLP v. Township of W. Whiteland, 193 F.3d 177 (3rd Cir. 1999). Government bodies may therefore place reasonable restrictions on the use recording devices, including a ban on certain devices, in order to preserve the orderly conduct of its meetings.
As far as the seizure goes IMHO that is kinda of a stretch.See The ban by law was legal its that simple.By chosing to go against the posted rules of the meeting They accepted the fact that their cameras would be taken away.Never mind the fact that to imply their personal property was seized also implys it was kept.It was not the camera and phone were returned when the people left.
Please dont get me wrong I am not in any way saying this was right or even smart I am just saying that it was not unconstitutional.Here is my thinking the protesters were their to cause a problem.We have all seen the videos of these town hall meetings being taken over by protesters from both sides.When this happens it really does take away from the true purpose of town hall meetings.That is the questions and answers.Its for the voting public to get a chance to hear what their representatives really have to say,not just what the news feels they should hear.There is a time and a place for political protest and inside town hall meetings is not one of them.As more and more protest are taken inside the town hall meetings we will see less and less of them.
Most U.S. House Members Not Doing Town Hall Meetings : It's All Politics : NPR
Again not saying this was right or smart.However I belive it was smarter then waiting for thing to get out of line and having security throw them out.Can you see the head lines "REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN HAS CONSTITUENTS THROWN OUT OF TOWN HALL MEETING FOR DISAGREEING WITH HIM"
"PROOF REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS DONT CARE WAHT THE VOTING PUBLIC HAS TO SAY"
Matthews,Maddow,Schultz,and Olbermann would have a feild day with that one.
