Posted on 07/06/2005 6:46:40 AM PDT by summer
WEST PALM BEACH — A journalist arrested outside elections headquarters last November after taking pictures of long waiting lines must face criminal charges, a judge ruled Tuesday.
James S. Henry violated the state law when he entered a 50-foot buffer zone and began taking photographs, County Judge Peter Evans decided.
Criminal defense attorneys for Henry, a Harvard-trained lawyer and author, had asked that the charges be dismissed. They argued that the state statute creating a 50-foot buffer ban on soliciting voters did not apply to working media.
Evans disagreed.
"The (statute) is designed to allow voters to cast their votes unmolested and with some degree of peace," Evans wrote. "There must come a time when the constant bombardment of partisan politics and news gathering will stop and voters may be free to walk into a voting booth undisturbed."
Henry, a New Yorker, was in town reporting for a book, Democracy in America. The 55-year-old was near the early-voting line, which wrapped around the elections building as people waited hours there to cast their vote.
A sheriff's deputy, following the order of then-Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore, warned Henry to stop taking photos, according to an arrest report. Henry refused, the report said, then fled when the deputy told him he would be arrested.
He faced three misdemeanor counts: resisting arrest, unlawful solicitation of voters and disorderly conduct.
Evans dismissed the disorderly conduct charge Tuesday. He ruled that Henry's behavior did not rise to that level and there were no witnesses to corroborate the deputy's account of events.
According to witness statements in the case, though, at least two civilians witnessed a sheriff's deputy chasing Henry. Henry tripped and fell, then refused to put a hand in handcuffs, according to witness reports.
Henry declined to comment Tuesday. His attorney, Richard Lubin, said he didn't know yet whether Henry would now begin a First Amendment argument for taking pictures at polling places.
"Jim Henry was a member of the working press covering the election process," Lubin said. "He did not approach or speak to any voters nor did he interfere with the election. The public should have the right to not only read about but see photos of newsworthy events."
FYI.
Wonder how Theresa will make news in 2008.
..."Didn't I see you @ the other precinct, too?"..."Many many times did you vote? 5x...10x".."Just where, Did you get those drugs and cigarettes?".."Did you just get off that (Union Paid) buses from Detroit, MI.?..this is FloriDuh." :D
LOL...the other aspect of this is: he was writing a BOOK and reportedly taking photos for a BOOK, and not everyone who goes out to vote -- in their flip flops or curlers or work clothes -- wants their photo plastered forever in a BOOK. Did he have signed releases from all these voters??? Do voters expect to have their photos in a book when they engage in voting? I don't think so.
So, any fool that claims to be writing a book is "The Press" now?
Yeah, I am glad you mentioned that - I was wondering about that point, too.
So, any fool that claims to be writing a book is "The Press" now?
I guess all you need these days is a notebook or a camera (and maybe one of those little "Press" cards to put in the hatband of your fedora!)
He will certainly have plenty of time to write and edit his book if gets 90 days in the pokey. Must be what he was thinking, get somebody else to cook for me while I write my book ! Who said them Harvard guys is stewfid????
Well, "Free Republic" indeed. For what's its worth, I'm a bona fide free-lance journalist whose written for a wide variety of leading publications. This case is an outrageous invasion of the First Amendment -- writing books and free lance articles is not yet outside the bounds of the First Amendment, so far as I know. We will contest this case vigorously, and would appreciate your support -- the Constitution is not some liberal conspiracy.
I understand what you say but the rules apply to everyone, when it comes to this. Do you realize that, that is exactly what the Democrats were claiming in the 2000 election.
People were being intimidated.
He could have taken pictures from outside the 50-foot buffer zone. He could have taken pictures of people after they emerged from voting and cleared the zone.
The law makes no exception for journalists. If that were the intent, the law would have provided for an exemption.
This is not a First Amendment case, if you ask me. The First Amendment doesn't give photographers the right to take pictures wherever they please; it also doesn't guarantee photographers a "good shot."
Dark will be here momentarily.
James would probably scream that it was okay for KGB agents to photgraph Christians going into a church during the communist era.
Sure hope the Mullahs don't get a copy of that video.
It would be a death sentence.
"This case is an outrageous invasion of the First Amendment -- writing books and free lance articles is not yet outside the bounds of the First Amendment, so far as I know."
Voter intimidation is not protected under the First Amendment.
Those kids probably are already dead.
I feel safer knowing this law is on the books.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.