From: Brook Hinton (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2007 - 19:30:02 PDT
Yup. Also the idea that exhibiting the film is the only "speech" aspect
makes no sense - the creation of speech is necessary for speech to exist. In
most cases, one has to film to speak via film.
No one is arguing that production of a scale that significantly interferes
with other peoples' public rights to use public space should not be
regulated. That's a straw man.
Anyway, today at least, in New York, WE WON. Or at least stopped the law as
written and opened up further dialog.
On 8/3/07, Katherin McInnis <email suppressed> wrote:
> > 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?
> the supreme court has ruled that symbolic expression of ideas - such
> as flag-burning or Hustler - counts as free speech. There is no
> creation/delivery distinction.
> The limits on free speech are inciting violence, "obscenity", etc.
> The government (state, local, etc.) has to show a legitimate reason
> that outweighs the 1st amendment right - this is where parade permits
> come in (traffic mayhem, noise, etc.)
> Katherin McInnis
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
-- _______________________________________________________ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com __________________________________________________________________ For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.