I got tipped on this by RedState diarist BigGator5, who is as gobsmacked as I am that this happened to a (presumed) Chris Dudley (R CAND, OR-GOV) supporter. Short version for those who can’t see/haven’t seen the video: a guy was filming Democratic candidate John Kitzhaber at a political event held in a church. He was asked to turn off the camera: he refused, on First Amendment grounds. Now, let me establish, for the record: this is a shaky argument, at best, when it comes to private property – even when the site is hosting a public event. So, I can easily enough concede that a duly-authorized representative of the church, Kitzhaber campaign, and/or group hosting the event may have indeed had the right to demand that the man turn off his camera.
I do not concede that said representative had the right to smash the guy’s camera in his face.
Note the use of a second camera, which is useful for establishing that no violent activity on the cameraman’s sparked the assault and battery. That was pretty much an unprovoked attack, there: and I’d like to know whether or not the assailant was involved with the Kitzhaber campaign or not. I’d also like to know whether the Democrats quite understand that if you want to punch back twice as hard, you have to wait for your opponents to actually punch you in the first place…
Moe Lane (Crossposted)