Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

WATCH on TheBlaze TV: Latest Updates on Tornado Aftermath, Including Updates From Glenn Beck in Oklahoma

Cops Confiscate 2 Cameras at Ohio GOP Rep. Chabot’s Town Hall Mtg.

Aug. 25, 2011 9:56am Billy Hallowell

Republican Congressman Steve Chabot (Ohio) is in the middle of a brewing controversy involving freedom to record public events.

Chabot’s staff allegedly ordered police to confiscate two cameras from individuals attending his town hall meeting on Monday night. Now, following this surprising action, clips of the incident are beginning to circulate.

Oddly, while normal citizens were told they couldn’t record the event, news cameras were rolling freely. The actions may have been rooted in Chabot’s hopes that disparaging YouTube clips of people protesting him wouldn’t make their rounds.

A Chabot spokesperson told Cincinnati.com that a staff member asked the police to take the cameras in order to protect the privacy of others:

A Chabot spokesman said the had the cameras seized “to protect the privacy of constituents” at the event, although there were at least two media outlets at the North Avondale Recreation Center filming the meeting.

[...]

A Cincinnati police officer was present at the request of Chabot’s staff. Chabot spokesman Jamie Schwartz said that the House Sergeant at Arms has advised members of the House to coordinaate with local law enforcement on all public events.

The first video shows an officer taking a camera from a woman in the audience:

Then, a second video captures police taking an iPhone away from a man. In this instance, the cops say that the event cannot be recorded, claiming that their confiscatory actions will “protect the constituents.”

Apparently, a sign had been posted outside the meeting saying that cameras would not be allowed for security reasons. Also, the individuals who lost their cameras were purportedly part of a group that was planning to protest against the congressman. But, as the clips show, these individuals weren’t being disruptive when the cameras were taken away.

In the end, this is sure to cause controversy. If, indeed, the congressman was trying to prevent footage of protesters, this will certainly come under scrutiny. In the end, it’s intriguing that a public meeting in a public building would see such actions occurring. Also, it’s bizarre that no one appears to have assumed the media would capture the police action.

The press surrounding the incident has apparently led to a change of heart. The Chabot spokesperson told Cincinnati.com that the guidelines will change for the next town hall:

By the time Chabot holds his next town hall meeting at Westwood Town Hall Monday, Schwartz said, the rules will have changed. People will be allowed to ask questions of the congressman directly and cameras will not be seized.

“We’ll just advise the audience that if they have something of a personal nature they want to discuss with the congressman, they come up afterwards and the congresssman will stay around as long as it takes to talk to them,” Schwartz said.

(h/t Piziq.com)

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (279)

TheWidowsSon
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:27am
Come on folks. The plan was to disrupt the meeting and have the disruption on film. It would have then been passed to MSNBC to show that the Republican congressman had HUGE crowds of dissatisfied constituents. We know that Unions are sending their people to Republican town halls to disrupt them and then video tape it as some sort of uprising AGAINST Republicans. Chabot should have let them play their game. The folks would have seen right through it !!!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Anarcho Capitalist
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:31am
  Cops took privet property. Cops on film committing acts of theft. They will come for your guns next. Try rolling things back then.
  
  The police state is here.
  
  Report this comment
- SenorStrange
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:40am
  The public should be the judge of that, not the police
  
  Report this comment
- gramma b
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:41am
  Anarcho: Who said anything about the police confiscating hedges?
  
  Report this comment
- loriann12
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:45am
  I don’t care if it’s the libs confiscating cameras, or the “conservatives.” It’s wrong no matter who did it. I suppose the meeting was held in a public place? If the lame stream media wants to exploit something and show it out of context, I suppose that’s their right. Maybe the left didn’t think THEIR cameras would be confiscated?
  
  Report this comment
- drattastic
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:09am
  Bad move and plain stupid. Now he creates even more of a stink ,what a dumba$$. He deserves all the flack he gets ,who does he think he is .
  
  Report this comment
- Sleazy Hippo
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:12am
  There has been a lot of recent press about the lack of GOP Town Halls during this non-recess. Some are asking if the GOP are trying to avoid getting negative public feedback by restricting attendance, by charging lunch fees, by making the meetings at remote locations or by simply not holding town hall meetings at all.
  
  This camera confiscation rule is kind of like restricting attendance to invited persons.
  
  What do you guys think? Are dirty tricks fair?
  
  Report this comment
- thinkinghuman
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:16am
  Do NOT defend this guy just because he is a Republican! That would be nonsense given the 1st Amendment Rights people have. Don’t go there Mr. Cynical, Mr. Biased, Mr. Spin.
  
  Report this comment
- A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:17am
  Chabot Spokesman Jamie Schwartz said:
  
  “We’ll just advise the audience that if they have something of a personal nature they want to discuss with the congressman, they come up afterwards and the congresssman will stay around as long as it takes to talk to them”
  
  If they had something of a personal nature to discuss, they wouldn’t have attempted to do so at a town hall meeting.
  
  Report this comment
- weeblewacker1
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:20am
  ya,just like the tea-party did a couple of years ago! did you just happen to “forget” that? how about the congressman that is charging people for his “town-hall” meetings? and how about paul ryan?? he will not meet with any of his unemployed constitutes! ya them tea-party people and rethugs,they really are working for you! wake-up!
  
  Report this comment
- FreeMan5771
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:20am
  Maybe so, maybe these were Union Thugs. I’m no fan of any kind of thug, but these people seemed to be acting peacefully when their cameras are confiscated.
  
  LISTEN TO ME AND PAY ATTENTION CAREFULLY HERE!
  
  To my knowledge, their is no law that says you cannot take photos in a public place. In fact, the courts have pretty much held the view that you have no right to privacy when you leave your home. You are subject to videotaping and / or audio recording almost everywhere you go. So how is taking a still photograph worse? IT ISN’T!
  
  What we have here is a police state, where an “elected”–or illuminati appointed– official declares “Hey, I don’t want the people to have cameras but the news crews can film to make me look good.” Then the police say “Yes, Sir. We will enforce your laws that you just made up on the spot.”
  
  So much for equal protection under the law! I certainly, by no means, want a Nancy Pelosi think-a-like, or look-a-like for that matter, representing this district. However, I think we should all demand an end to the police state.
  
  The sad thing is that the police are mostly good people, they just see things black and white with no grey areas. The police, by growing numbers, no longer enforce the actual rule of law, but instead enforce whatever unjust laws the ruling class make up on the spot.
  
  In the USA, the Ruling Elite now rule by decree!
  In the USA, the police now serve as their body guards and enforcers!
  In the USA, fre
  
  Report this comment
- American_Bearcat
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:23am
  Sleazy Hippo
  
  Actually the stats show that 50% of the GOP are missing the meets where the Democrats are missing 67% of the time
  
  Report this comment
- sWampy
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:33am
  Sounds like something MLK, Jessie Jackson, or Sharpton would do/would have done, they always say one thing when the recorders are going, then encourage violence when they think they are not.
  
  Report this comment
- Sleazy Hippo
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:48am
  So IN EVERY STATE, our GOP politicians are proud to use dirty tricks to avoid public impressions being known, the same behavior the astro-turf Taxed Enough Already parties demonstrated at those famous “anti-Obamacare” town halls that were You-Tubed to every corner of the earth!
  
  Central Planners Unite! TEA is US.
  
  Report this comment
- fastfacts
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 12:03pm
  Little off subject, but this reminds me of the seagull that stole the mans camera and took off with it, filming everything behind it. Hillarious: http://www.americanparchment.com/video/2011/july/seagull_steals_camera.html
  
  Report this comment
- PATTY HENRY
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 12:15pm
  SO what??? let them disrupt… THIS should do it for this candidate. ANYONE who authorized taking cameras should not be re-elected. GROW SOME WOULD YA? LET them come, let them disrupt…DEAL WITH IT… they go away…but do not take away the FREEDOM of SPEECH, INFORMATION for any stupid, nanny-state, CONTROL FREAKING reason. GOT IT? This is a gutless candidate and not worthy of support.
  
  Report this comment
- Longpond
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 12:15pm
  Hippo, where are you getting “So IN EVERY STATE, our GOP politicians are proud to use dirty tricks to avoid public impressions being known”? I’ve not seen any evidence of other Republicans confiscating anything. As far as Tea Party protests being “astro turf”, again there is no evidence. There is evidence that the Bush protests were “astro turf”, in the absence of any protesting of Obama continuing the Bush policies. Where are all the peace activists now? Three wars and counting and no more “deadliest days” in the media or anti-war activism
  
  Report this comment
- Blackop
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 12:21pm
  It’s irrelevant that they posted a sign saying that filming was not allowed. It’s a talk by a public figure in a public venue. The cop was way out of line to take private property.
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 12:25pm
  If a cop tried to take away my property without a warrant, I’m afraid there might be a fight. No, I know there would be a fight and I would gladly go to jail for knocking him on his ****. Americans need to stop rolling over when little nazis like this cop think that just because they wear a uniform they don’t have to obey the Constitution – see the Fourth Amendment.
  
  Report this comment
- Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 12:30pm
  One more attempt by the administration and their union thugs to stir up trouble and bring down the fist upon the people of the nation; the same people Napoletano declares to be domestic terrorists, and not the real ones who would love to destroy the nation as well.
  
  Report this comment
- blowback
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 12:31pm
  Do the same, do not silence the public. Republicans and Democrats alike are the problem.
  
  Report this comment
- 408 CheyTac
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 12:59pm
  The republican party at it’s norm.
  
  This is what you get with the party that brought you the biggest theft of your privacy ever.
  
  And you think ANY of them are any different? Get your head out of the sand. Dem, Repub, whatever-both are the same. Elitist jackasses that need to go. The time for a viable 3rd party is here.
  
  Report this comment
- VISITORNUMBER3
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 1:57pm
  You can’t twist the law and make this kind of thing okay if it happens to be liberals whose rights are being violated. If you’re a true conservative/patriot, then you have a responsibility to stand up for everybody’s rights. I’m a conservative myself but it sounds to me like this GOP Congressman needs to read a copy of the Constitution, starting with the first amendment.
  
  Report this comment
- Ronko
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 2:33pm
  Totally illegal and not cool. I understand the representative wants to guard against protesters but this doesn’t help at all.
  
  Report this comment
- GPS-Tech
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 2:51pm
  More hypocrisy, now the Republicans want to manipulate the media also. The other side of the same coin. There is no government that can be created by man that cannot be corrupted by man.
  
  Report this comment
- jorge_washington
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 3:07pm
  Union thugs you say? I only saw middle age and elderly folks sitting quietly in their chairs in the video. Those are T-Party folk. The reason they’re complaining is that THEY ARE PAYING ATTENTION to the republican candidates as they say that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education and the like are unconstitutional and even making people lazy. They aren’t worrying about themselves but they are worrying about own kids and their grandkids having SS and MC taken away just so that the wealthy can have more tax breaks
  
  About 60% of the republican congressmen are not having town hall meetings in August. Other republican congressmen that have had town meetings are having them only by invitation or charging money to their constituents to attend or having the police confiscate their phones and video equipment.
  
  How’s taking back your country working out for you?
  
  Questioning with boldness.
  
  Report this comment
- Jaycen
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 3:41pm
  I’m sorry, but assuming you’re correct, TheWidowsSon, it was a foolish move.
  
  Freedom has to be the default setting in America. We don’t need someone to protect us from ourselves. Your reasoning paves the road to state control of practically everything – “Well, if we’d allowed cameras, someone clearly could have used this as an opportunity to…”
  
  Here, you are innocent until proven guilty. When someon acts like a douche, you call him out. You don’t handcuff him, because you assume he’ll be a douche.
  
  Report this comment
- 8th Man
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 5:49pm
  There is no provision in Ohio law that would permit a law enforcement officer to violate a citizen’s right to unlawful search and seizure and allow them to seize someone’s camera. As other legal writers have noted: “…police had no legal right to confiscate a single camera. “Cops may be entitled to ask for people’s names and addresses and may even go as far as subpoenaing [film or] the video tape, but as far as confiscating the camera on the spot, no,” said Marc Randazza, A First Amendment attorney based out of Florida and a Photography is Not a Crime reader.
  
  Bert P. Krages II, the Oregon attorney who drafted the widely distributed The Photographer’s Rights guide, responded to my inquiry with the following e-mail message:
  
  “In general, police cannot confiscate cameras or media without some sort of court order. One exception is when a camera is actually being used in the commission of crime (e.g., child pornography, counterfeiting, upskirting).”
  
  When things like this happen, citizens of any party should cooperate and identify the police officer and demand that he be disciplined. If any of the citizens have the funds etc, they should consider filing civil suit against him. Things like this should not be allowed to stand.
  
  Report this comment
- Red Max
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 5:55pm
  Well said FREEMAN & 8TH MAN.
  
  Report this comment
- michael8506
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 9:24pm
  I would of made a scene. If we tolerate this action they will just grow more bold. Why didn’t anyone say anything?
  
  Report this comment
- mobynowak
  Posted on August 26, 2011 at 11:15am
  So what? It’s irrelevant where the video would eventually go.
  
  Report this comment
- tmplarnite
  Posted on August 26, 2011 at 11:19am
  Congressman work for us…they have NO Rights to Steal my property….period!
  
  Report this comment
eramthgin
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:25am
Totally unacceptable. Who do these people think they are?????? If you are afraid to have someone see what you are doing then you shouldn’t be doing it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MidWestMom
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:41am
  “…to protect the constituents…”
  “….we can do this the hard way or the easy way….”
  “….. don’t make this hard for me….”
  
  Answers:
  Then confiscate the news media cameras.
  The hard way.
  Yes, I am going to make this hard for you.
  
  Report this comment
- GPS-Tech
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 2:55pm
  @Midwest Mom
  Take it from someone who has been the victim of police brutality, dont ever disobey a cops orders no matter how much you are in the right. They can kick the crap out of you get away with it even if the are found guilty of abuse through lenient sentencing.
  
  Report this comment
turkey13
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:22am
This is Ohio home of the progressive movement. He hasn’t forgot the footage of black union thugs kicking a black guy at a Tea Party meeting. This is warm up practice for next years election cycle.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 13th Imam
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:46am
  Nice Try. Those were union DEMOCRATS.
  
  Report this comment
- drattastic
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:13am
  @encinom
  Bet if this was a dumbocrat you would be making excuses for him ,wouldn’t you.
  
  Report this comment
- MidWestMom
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:18am
  @ encinom
  “….. antother tea-bagging elected tyrannt….”
  And once again, are you saying Congressman Steve Chabot is one who participates in a certain sexual act?
  
  Report this comment
- 13th Imam
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:21am
  Ask McGreavy. or Fwank They are DEMOCRAT’s , with vast experience in ENC’S favorite vocation.
  
  Report this comment
- UPSETVET
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:37am
  Welcome to Obama’s NEW WORLD ORDER with Nazi Gestapo tactics. Between now and November 2012 we’ll see a lot of nnconstitutional things happening in America. Obama has no intention of leaving the Whtehouse, reelected or not.
  
  He’s paving the way for his executive order suspending elections for the “good of the people”. He’s not worried about being reelected. He plans to remain the POTUS no matter what and he’s signing executive orders unoticed by the general public now in order to begin the process.
  
  Will our Military Forces intervene and preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution as they swore an oath to do or will they blindly follow a rougue leader who has no intention of keeping his sworn oath as the POTUS, I’m afraid we’ll soon find out.
  
  Report this comment
- drago
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 12:00pm
  Please dont feed encinom, the rumpranger troll……..
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 2:18pm
  UPSETVET
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:37am
  Welcome to Obama’s NEW WORLD ORDER with Nazi Gestapo tactics. Between now and November 2012 we’ll see a lot of nnconstitutional things happening in America. Obama has no intention of leaving the Whtehouse, reelected or not.
  ____________________________
  The Congressman in question was supported by the Tea-bagging Party, Obama had nothing to do with this, your side did.
  
  Report this comment
- Bill Rowland
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 5:30pm
  Upsetvet – you are absoluely right, I’ve been saying this for a long time. He is ruining the economy refusing to let DOJ do anything about the mobs in major cities on the east coast. Atlanta, Birmingham, New Oreleans, Houston and San Antonio are next, Then the west coasr cities. The unrest and ensuing riots will give him an excuse to deploy a National Guard force, backed by the active Army. Once deployed he declares Martial Law suspends the election and most of our civil rights.
  All Hail King Obama the First.
  
  Report this comment
- Bill Rowland
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 7:28pm
  UPSETVET – you are absolutely right – I’ve been saying this for a long time.
  All Hail in
  
  Report this comment
avgconservative
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:20am
Last I heard, a “townhall” meeting wasn’t private. It was for the TOWN. How does Cabot know people want their privacy protected? This is so obvious it stinks!

To hear the double standard speech of liberals:
http://flipthelib.com

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 12:58pm
  There seems to be a trend in Ohio. The cops think they are Gestapo agents and the politicians think that they are gods or something. This crap is going to come to a head big time someday and the Nazis are gonna pay. By the way, I am TEA party all the way. Nazis and traitors are on both sides of the aisle.
  
  Report this comment
- GPS-Tech
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 3:01pm
  I’m with you Mil,
  Right is right, wrong is wrong. Don’t tell me its okay to break the law when it’s a political opponent or someone or some group that is considered an enemy.
  
  Report this comment
tbl10
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:16am
Get used to it, they will continue to take away our civil liberties until we have none left. Meanwhile the brainwashed masses will just sit there and agree well it is for security. Old Ben Franklin whose right: “Those that sacrifice freedom for security shall have neither.”

God Help us All when they do implement martial law. 1930′s Germany here we come.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:26am
  “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  
  Report this comment
- john luther
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:55am
  Where is it that says filming anything is a civil liberty .Freedom to speak is Freedom to film is no where to be mentioned.Do i agree that he should have done it no but no one was told they could not be heard .
  
  Report this comment
- rmurfster
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 2:09pm
  john luther, “Where is it that says filming anything is a civil liberty ” – Try the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. The problem with your question is the same reason the Anti-Federalists when the Bill of Rights was created did not want a Bill of Rights. We have many more “rights” than are outlined in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights just outlined the most important ones. It is common sense that a Public official in a public place at a public meeting can be publicly videotaped! Also, if there is no law against it, then the police have no authority to stop me. There is no Ohio Law that states that I cannot videotape a public official. Only congress can make laws, so you can’t just post a sign and it becomes a law! Uggh.
  
  Report this comment
Catchout
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:16am
That is a lame excuse, like someone is going to bring up something personal in a public meeting. and even if it did happen, Its a Public Meeting. This guy is way out of line, I’m afraid if I was there, the cop would have had to arrest me.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Texas Hills Patriot
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:14am
The brown shirts have arrived at town hall meetings. Who does he think he is, telling people what they can and cannot photograph in a public arena? Inch by inch we are becoming servants of these arrogant, self-serving, elitist idiots.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jacks
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:58am
  What he did was wrong, and your wrong. Read your history. The brown shirts are on the left side of history. “Democrat national socialist” So when you make a improperly informed statement like that, it makes you sound uneducated. If your not educated, the only statements you should make is on a wall with a can of spray paint
  
  Report this comment
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 1:12pm
  Come on Jacks, who cares what side of the aisle the politicians sits on-left or right. The fact is that the NAZI Gestapo did whatever they were told to do to the German citizens, including murder. Who fricking cares if the goons were “ordered” by a GOP or a Prog to take the camera. A goon is a goon.
  
  Report this comment
fastfwd
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:13am
did you folks miss the part where it said there was a sign OUTSIDE the building saying no cameras would allowed inside ? I think it was a stupid idea and not sure if posting a sign voids the freedom we should have in a public hearing inside a public building.And if there was a real Cop there he may have questioned under what law they had the right to do this ?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SanRemo1959
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:48am
  Exactly! There was a frigging sign saying NO PHOTOS! Leave it to the commie liberal rabble rousing propagandist to ignore the sign and go ahead and shoot some propaganda footage anyway. The nerve of some people(libs). The cop should have just smashed the camera on the floor and arrested her/him/it. Why are so many liberals on the site today whining about rights? This is a non-story. The cop did nothing wrong. Neither did Rep Cabot. In fact Mr. Cabot keep up the good work. I’ll be sending you a little campaign donation.
  
  Report this comment
- MidWestMom
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:14am
  According to the article the sign said: “cameras would not be allowed for security reasons.”
  Since when has a camera become a threat to security?
  Since the newscameras were allowed, shouldn’t that sign have said “private cameras would not be allowed for security reasons”
  
  Report this comment
- FRONTIERSMAN
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:49am
  I don’t care whether there was a sign outside or not, that does not make it legal. And I don’t care whether it was union folks at a republican town hall or tea party folks at a democrat town hall, citizens have the right to record a publicly elected official at a public location, for any purpose…PERIOD.
  
  Looks like we will be seeing more of this….get ready 1A, you will become infringed more and more each day just like the 2A
  
  Report this comment
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 1:15pm
  Screw that sign. What about the constitution? You can’t just make up laws because you are an elected official. I don’t care if the camera owners were Progs or Gops, they have a right to take a picture of anything they want to in a public place. Anybody that says otherwise is a govt loving bootlicker-enemies of the American people. We will find you. All of you.
  
  Report this comment
GETLIFE
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:13am
Now THAT’S a POliceman! Protect and serve. Protect and serve.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 1:21pm
  Don’t you mean “To Protect politicians and serve themselves”? Is that not what you meant to say?
  
  Report this comment
NOBELSPORT
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:12am
an elected PUBLIC official at a PUBLIC event does not want the PUBLIC to make PUBLIC his PUBLIC appearance. The party makes no difference anymore. They all look at themselves as the ruling elite and us as the sheep.
AND WE BELIEVE WE ARE FREE????……WAKE UP

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bikerr
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:36am
  While I agree he had no right to take any cameras, he wasn’t doing it to avoid being seen in public,(as you posted) but rather to stop protesters from being able to disrupt his town hall meeting and put it up on the internet.Again I agree he was wrong but, don’t attack him for the wrong reason.
  
  Report this comment
- loriann12
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:51am
  Is he afraid of how he’d react to protestors? Don’t they train for that? Afraid he’ll look stupid? Afraid liberal protestors are going to use facts? Like that would ever happen. Liberals and facts in the same sentence just should occur.
  
  Report this comment
- MidWestMom
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:56am
  I didn’t see any “protesters” trying to disrupt anything. I saw two private citizens calmly recording the meeting. They didn’t even become disruptive when the cop was trying to take their cameras. They asked pertinent questions in calm, quiet voices. And the only reason it was audible was because of the news crews who were filming the cop who was confiscating their cameras.
  
  And I saw two news crews filming the exact thing the private citizens were filming – and showing faces. The news crews were even filming (again showing the faces of) those constituents whose cameras were being confiscated – and I guarantee they were on the evening news. But I guess that doesn’t fall under the “protecting constituents” nonsense.
  
  Report this comment
- MidWestMom
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:02am
  @ bikerr
  
  I didn’t see anyone, protesters or not, trying to “disrupt” his town hall meeting. Everyone I saw, including the people who’s cameras were being taken, were sitting quietly.
  
  Report this comment
HippoNips
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:11am
Why does The Blaze’s “journalist” Billy Hallowell have us believing what Think Progress is reporting?

Glenn Beck needs to clean house here

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Ibinaround2
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 12:52pm
  Hey, it’s wrong whether GOP or Dem……
  
  Report this comment
tomloy
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:11am
This is a reason not to vote for this mental midget. And the police officers should be FIRED for confiscating the cameras. If it were me, I’d sue the police for several million dollars!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GERATMO
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:43am
  People who sue for minor illegal acts are a problem. Do you know whos paying for your lawsuite.
  
  Report this comment
Chuck Stein
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:10am
Since when can a congressman order the police to violate the 1st Amendment? Since when can a congressman order the police to do anything, for that matter?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mdlwoods
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:10am
Whats with all the yellow shirts? Obviously a group of union members probably sent there to completely disrupt the meeting. I cannot, at this point after everything Acorn, SEIU, etc. have done, condemn the Congressman for wanting to “disrupt” whatever they were planning. If I had been at that meeting, as a private citizen, to ask questions of my Congressman, and was met by all those “yellow shirts” it would have made me uncomfortable in the least, fearful, probably.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Anarcho Capitalist
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:15am
  So its ok to violate rights when you want to? I see.
  
  Report this comment
- afishfarted
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:17am
  am I the only one disturbed that cops–who I gennerally respect–are confiscating PERSONAL PROPERTY willy nilly at the behest of a politicain?? Like–what ever happened to teaching cops the Constitution–illegal search and SEIZURES. THis is scary. TOO much a police state here
  
  Report this comment
- 13th Imam
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:29am
  Nice catch MDL, These Yellow Shirt Community Organizers were not there to “Ask Questions”, but to not let other citizens” Ask Questions” , Seems most of you agree with the disruption , by Barry supporters, of this meeting. Go Figure
  
  Report this comment
- AlansTigg
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:34am
  so the confiscation of phones/cameras would have made you feel safer?
  
  Report this comment
- cajunmojo
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:35am
  I second that motion, what is the deal with all the yellow shirts. Maybe union thugs using video to strong arm anybody who does not agree with their union views. Oh and let’s not forget the sign . . “Apparently, a sign had been posted outside the meeting saying that cameras would not be allowed for security reasons” . So all you idiots who are taking the first amendment stance. What about just following the rules that have been posted outside the door. Oh those silly rules , they do not apply to me.
  
  Report this comment
- ruffnex
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:40am
  All those Yellow Shirts. Not interested in what the speaker was saying, only waiting to disrupt things and stir up trouble. Union members….THAT’s what they are there for…
  
  Report this comment
- SanRemo1959
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:52am
  Are you people all crazy? It was a union lib trouble maker at a tea party town hall. She deserved everything she got.
  
  Report this comment
- 13th Imam
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:59am
  Cajun
  
  Please stop with the “Idiots”. Most of us are on the same side but disagree on minor issues. Our goal is to Boot Barry out of our house. Focus Grasshopper
  
  Report this comment
- afishfarted
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 2:06pm
  yeah, Imam. We do agree on most points, and only a few are worthy of debate. But as we are focusing on ousting the usurper, we also have to be vigilant of everything else—to keep things in perspective. Let’s say these yellow shirts WERE there to be disruptive. They weren’t at the time. And we conservatives cannot allow to happen to our opposition what has happened to us. Let these schmucks start their disruptive behavior, THEN have them escorted out and –dare I say–charge them with disorderly conduct. But for pete’s sake, for a GOP rep to confiscate cameras before he even speaks does NOT bode well for the conservative movement. Anything that mirrors a brown shirt tactic has to be condemned
  
  Report this comment
- rmurfster
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 2:16pm
  cajunmojo – OK, when the sign says, “No asking disruptive questions”, do those rules apply to you as well? Since when can a Congressman post whatever he wants, whether it violates the Constitution or not and you say it is a valid rule? Have fun on the way to the re-education camp. Actually, you probably won’t have to go to the camp because you will be obeying all the “rules”.
  
  Report this comment
Anarcho Capitalist
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:10am
I like how they try and reason with the cops… As if cops have the capacity of reason. You don’t become and armed thug because your a thinker.

Look closely at the cops in your town people. They will be coming for your guns next and telling them you have a right will mean nothing to them.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- rockstone
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:04am
  Yep. It is the cops and firefighters who’s pensions and benefits will be next on the chopping block and they have one helluva powerful union.
  
  Report this comment
G man
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:09am
Commies in charge.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bikerltoo
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:08am
My question is….why did the policeman go along with this?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Anarcho Capitalist
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:14am
  Because they are not very smart….
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:38am
  ‘Just following orders’ sound familiar?
  
  Report this comment
- macpappy
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:51am
  Well, see the Politicians are the ones that appoint the police staff officers, Chief, DA, Judges, and without these people there would be no bosses. So, the politicians are the bosses of the police; same as a politician has last word on military matters.
  It will be a politician that orders that union officer to come pick up your arms from your home one day. He will come, he will come ready to do battle. What will you do when 2 policemen are standing at your front door demanding entry to confiscate your firearms?
  
  Report this comment
- Andrew Panken
  Posted on August 26, 2011 at 12:13am
  They’re all breaking the law. Following orders isn’t an excuse, either. There’s suppose to be a chain of command. Of course, if their chief okayed it, then he would be in violation of the law, too. It’s the same thing going on at the TSA airport checkpoints TSA has a sign posted, stating no cameras are allowed. It’s all against the law, per our Constitution which doesn’t exempt Democrats, Republicans or whatever party involved.
  
  Report this comment
inexiletill2012
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:05am
You can put a camera in a hat or glasses or a button on your shirt.
If people want to record something they will

SO BEHAVE LIKE YOUR BEING RECORDED

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
13th Imam
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:05am
If a Code Pink loon was in the audience taking pictures of other audience members for future reprisal, why not the ban. If the meeting was being recorded by a responsible media outlet, and a no cell phone camera ban was enacted ,why did they have to take video or photos??Just another “Lawyer Jackpot”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
S_Owen
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:05am
If this would have been a Democrat doing this to the public, the left would be crying bloody murder. I would have told Chabot to shut up, smile for the camera, and remember that I am paying for his wages, oh, and of course, HE WORKS FOR ME. Methinks these politicians need to remember who the hell We the People are.

Fah.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NOBALONEY
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:04am
SOROS and his useful idiots!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Amazingoly
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:04am
The security man is way out of line, and the congressman needs to be voted out next year. This is not “freedom” as we know it, and Freedom will prevail.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
thegreatcarnac
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:02am
Big mistake. Who is that idiot’s campaign manager? Whoever it is,..he should fire him.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 1:19pm
  Folks, you are missing the point. THe cop took an oath to uphold the constitution. He has a duty to not only know what an illegal order is but to disobey one if ordered. It is the bootlicking cops that are enabling these tyrants to do this crap to our liberties. Yep, sell out your fellow Amercans in exchange for a paycheck and pension. There will always be punks that were bullied as kids that grow up and side with the state. Payback time to them.
  
  Report this comment
- rmurfster
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 2:19pm
  Mil-Dot – Problem is 99% of the police have neither read the US Constitution nor the Ohio Constitution, so they don’t know what is legal or not. They just do was they’re told.
  
  Report this comment
HKS
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:02am
What part of a public meeting does not apply here? Public is Public, end of story.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Roberto G. Vasquez
Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:00am
Confiscating cameras at public meetings? Sounds like something Hitler would have been proud of.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- S_Owen
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:07am
  No, no, he’s a Republican! He’s one of the “good guys”. He’s a moronic excuse for an elected official and he needs to be removed from office and immediately replaced. There is no amount of spin that can be put onto this to make him a hero or a man of honor.
  
  Where are the real elected servants?
  
  Report this comment
- MidWestMom
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:14am
  Yep. One more example of the “police state” our country is fast becoming.
  
  “…..“to protect the privacy of constituents” …” Really? I guess that means the news camera crews got signed “yes you can show my face on your news footage” releases from all the contituents they were taping? Uh-huh, sure they did.
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 10:22am
  @ s owen you’re half right, more accurately he’s a rino and doesn’t understand what a public meeting is.
  
  Report this comment
- S_Owen
  Posted on August 25, 2011 at 11:25am
  @ProgSlayer,
  
  Ahhhh, okay. A RINO is worth double my contempt, then. I wasn’t aware of this with Chabot. Not to say I am defending the GOP as being wholly moral and upright, no. But a RINO is a category all unto themselves.
  
  Thanks for the clarification!
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.