Does the county ordinance that adversely affects Deep South Sanitation
and no other company follow a pattern already set by the county?
The VDT posted pictures clearly taken not from the media box during
Regular Session of the Lowndes County Commission:
this one shows Gretchen videoing for LAKE from that media box.
Has the Lowndes County Commission granted an exclusive franchise
to the VDT for photographing, like the one it granted to ADS for trash collection?
Or has the Commission admitted its anti-videoing ordinance was actually
an illegal bill of attainder directed at LAKE alone?
If so, why is it still posted on the door?
And why is the county still planning to sue Deep South Sanitation
on account of an ordinance and contract that directly adversely
affects no other business?
Hm, could that also be an illegal bill of attainder?
Two weeks ago today a U.S. appeals court ruled that
citizens can video police.
The actual decision is broader than that.
It’s not just about police, it’s about
“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a
The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to
videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First
Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other
circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative.
It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s
aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws