From: Chuck Kleinhans (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2007 - 17:50:02 PDT
Folks are sure worked up about this, but it often seems to a somewhat
skeptical outsider like me (freedom for artists, sure; some sense of
accountability and responsibility, sure) there's more steam and smoke
and posturing in the responses to Carlisle than thought.
Perhaps someone can tell me:
How is it that someone filming in public is exercising "free speech"
unless the filmmaker is talking and making a speech while filming?
Does the First Amendment mention creation or just delivery?
Seems like "free speech" for filmmakers would apply more to
restrictions on screening work in public.
What is unreasonable about a municipality trying to regulate,
coordinate, and keep track of a bunch of people who are taking up
some parts of public space for over 30 minutes? People seem to
accept that controlling aggressive panhandlers, Hari Krishna
solicitors, buskers, etc. is a reasonable government function. Why
should filmmakers be exempt from the common sense of public space?
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.