ACLU supports NJ man who claims right to videotape public meetings

Posted on August 21, 2006

From the Courier-Post: ACLU files brief in Pine Hill dispute

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its support of a Pine Hill resident who is fighting in court for his right to videotape public meetings.

The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief, a document submitted by a non-litigant that offers unsolicited testimony or other information of relevance to the case.

“The right to freedom of speech and of the press includes the right to obtain and document public information,” said Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, the firm that wrote the brief. “In no arena is that right as important as during meetings of elected officials.”

Robert Wayne Tarus, a Pine Hill community activist, is at the center of the dispute.

Tarus’ camera was seized by former Pine Hill Police Chief John Welker and he was charged with disorderly conduct after he refused to turn off his camera during an October 2000 meeting.

Officials said the filming violated the privacy of audience members in attendance.

Tarus subsequently was acquitted of all charges in municipal court.

Tarus took his case to U.S. District Court, claiming his civil rights were violated. His lawsuit was dismissed and he unsuccessfully appealed that decision to the Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

He then went to state court.

A state appeals court in November upheld borough officials’ right to bar him from doing so.

The three-judge panel found the public has no right under the state constitution to videotape public proceedings. The panel also said there was no proof Tarus was prevented from expressing his views to council or was denied access to a public meeting.

The matter now is before the state Supreme Court.

If everyone is treated equally in regard to documenting these meetings, this case should have no shot. Audio/video/photographic restrictions are common in regard to public proceedings, including and especially court proceedings, so I am not surprised that he was forbidden from walzing in with a video camera. Ever try to take a video camera into the US Senate? It also sounds like this “community activist” was pretty belligerent, so there may be more to the story than “poor innocent guy with The Man’s boot on his neck.” Perhaps he should have approached the “powers that be” for a compromise (maybe ask that the public meetings be recorded and made available to the public if they are not already? Sounds reasonable, no?). To argue that there is some absolute “right” to document any public meeting in any way one chooses is unsupportable. Equally ridiculous though, is the officials’ position that video taping a public meeting would violate the “privacy” of audience members…it’s a PUBLIC meeting! The argument for limits on documentation for reasons of safety, order and decorum would be much more compelling especially if there is already requirement that the proceeedings be documented somehow and made available to the public anyway. Sounds like a lawsuit that never had to be.

» Filed Under ACLU, News

Trackback URL

Comments

One Response to “ACLU supports NJ man who claims right to videotape public meetings”

Jay on August 21st, 2006 7:20 pm

Interesting they take the position that this is public, but that protesters being observed in public is spying. Heh.