Of course, there's an interesting legal question here... can an unofficial "vote" of participants at a public event on public property eliminate the legal right of others to videotape the proceedings?

he does have a point about people abusing technology in dishonest ways.

But who can help but empathize with the dozens of folks in the audience who sided with Stupak -- who have seen one too many hatchet jobs from videocam-wielding "citizens" exercising their "Constitutional rights"?

From the account, it's impossible to say whether the would-be tapers were mild-mannered citizens or partisans who telegraphed vitriol that foreshadowed a video hatchet job.

Bruce Fealk might go to jail for refusing to stop videotaping in Troy 3 weeks ago.  This issue will keep coming up again and again, so lets think it through.

Fealk walked into a public building (Troy Community Center) which apparently prohibits taping in the hallways but allows those who RENT rooms to have their own policy in the rooms.  Sometimes the rooms are rented for birthday parties, sometimes for Republican and Democratic Party public and private events, sometimes for who knows what.  In the Fealk case, the Republicans rented the room for a quasi-open "panel" of non-candidates on the Republican role in black history.  The organizers asked everyone to not use cameras - Fealk refused, ironically citing me (I had been denied in 2007 the ability to tape a City Council campaign debate hosted partially by Democrats, with MSM videocameras given an exclusive, but I didn't wait for police since I understand it was a nuanced legal situation balancing private and public rights and since it just wasn't worth it over that -- but they were candidates for office and the exclusion was targeted solely at me, so I consider the situation then worse than Fealk's beef).

Lennox - he videotapes on a public university campus, and has never published students faces to my knowledge despite that bogeyman concern being raised, and he's taping a US Congressional candidate who is also a State employee (CMU is a state school).

Stupak - public meeting using CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.  Seems plain to me.  The Chambers should be subject to the Open Meetings Act (indeed, if a quorum of councilpersons were present, this would be a violation of the OMA open-videotaping provisions), but even if the quorum wasn't present its public property.  If Stupak wants to rent private property he can control the situation - who cares if a majority (of Stupak supporters) held a hand vote.  We're a nation of laws and hand votes of rooms full of people can't override the First Amendment.