Rumley Spits on the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Must be REMOVED for VIOLATING his Oath of Office

RUMLEY LOATHES FREE SPEECH 
AND WILL DO HIS DAMNDEST TO HURT CITIZENS

 Case 1:14-cv-00104-BLW Document 39-1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 7 of 18
 https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/ALDF%20v.%20Otter%20CCR%20amicus%20brief.pdf#page=6&zoom=auto,-200,233

CCR Amicus Brief - Center for Constitutional Rights

https://ccrjustice.org/sites/.../ALDF%20v.%20Otter%20CCR%20amicus%20brief.pdf

May 21, 2014 - is “fundamental and virtually self-evident”); Demarest v. Athol/Orange Cmty. TV, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 82, 92-95 (D. Mass. 2002) (“At base ...

Creating a recording is “included with the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.” ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 597 (7th Cir. 2012). The stages of speech relating to recordings are so intertwined as to be nearly inseparable, and the protection accorded them is even more apparent when, as in this case, the subject of recording is a matter of public interest. 

This is because videotaping unsafe conditions is indistinguishable from “commenting” and “speaking” on such conditions, and videotapes, like other statements “‘speak’ for themselves.” Cirelli v. Town of Johnston Sch. Dist., 897 F. Supp. 663, 666 (D.R.I. 1995) (teacher’s videotaping of school conditions protected by First Amendment); see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 379 n.5 (2007) (videotape of police chase “speak[s] for itself”); Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 84-85 (1st Cir. 2011) (videotaping of public officials discharging their duties is protected by the First Amendment and this protection is “fundamental and virtually self-evident”); Demarest v. Athol/Orange Cmty. TV, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 82, 92-95 (D. Mass. 2002) (“At base, plaintiffs had a constitutionally protected right to record matters of public interest” which ran contrary to a provision requiring all persons filmed to sign a release form); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (First Amendment right to record matters of public interest); and Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F. Supp. 2d 534 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (First Amendment right to videotape police conduct).