Student Gadfly Runs Afoul of American U.

Great Debates
21

When you have over 5000 classmates trying to watch the speech, yes it is. Hard to turn around while sitting isn’t it? There were over 40000 people at the commencement, and yes, such an action would have been very disruptive.
And I can say that because I was there, my sister was getting her Masters degree in chemistry at that commencement.

As an aside, I remember that the local newspaper tried to make it sound like there had been a major protest picket outside the arena before the commencement, I saw one person with a sign, and my sister noted that there were a grandtotal of 7 people protesting outside the building the graduates assembled at. Hardly a major protest picket. But what do you expect from the Dayton Daily.

22

RTFirefly, as I pointed out above, with that many people such a protest would have disrupted proceedings, and thus would not have been right or fair to the people who came to see their family/friends commencement.
Also, certain silent protests occured, I spotted at least two mortarboards with ‘Gore in 2004’ taped onto the top of them.

23

Oh, as for my stance on the OP.
If Gore’s contract with the university was that there would be no taping of the speech, by anyone save properly appointed designees such as the press, then the university was in the right to remove Wetmore. His entry into the event included the agreement to adhere to the contract of the university. If as has been claimed, that the contract only prohibited the university from recording, then things are a bit stickier, but the spirit of the contract is as was understood to be no recording.
However, if there was no such provision in the universities contract with Gore, that no recording would take place, then, fair use provisions do apply, and he was wrongfully removed.

24

Sorry. The OSU protestors were idiots, just as Wetmore seems to be an idiot, but a few people silently “facing away” would probably have been less disruptive than the inevitable clueless relatives chattering away during the ceremony. The cops moved in during a period when the whole audience was standing, not sitting, and probably caused more disruption than ignoring them would have.

25

I don’t get it. Doesn’t the States have laws regarding freedom of the press? Or is that only available to journalists sanctioned by the state? (He has a web journal) Could the university restrain a national network from videotaping a political figure of national importance?

26

Do I even need to bother pointing out the almost hysterically funny looniness of this?

27

He’s not actually bound by the agreement between AU and Gore. He is bound by the agreement to abide by the rules of the Arena. It might seem like a strange distinction, but it’s important. AU and Gore sign a contract in which she prohibits flash photography and videotaping. Since AU owns Bender Arena they can prohibit people from bringing in video cameras – which would bring them in compliance with the AU/Gore contract. If you choose to go to the Arena you must abide by the rules. That’s how musicians make sure people don’t tape their performances. Now, the big difference is that taping Rush and taping Gore are different things. As one person mentioned in the article he might have a First Amendment defense.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that AU botched this pretty badly. I think they had the right to prevent him from taping. But, they certainly didn’t take adequate steps to prevent the problem. Whetmore, despite apparently being a jerk, brought a video camera in good faith to a speech. AU did not prevent him from bringing the camera in and did not announce that videotaping was prohibited. I’ve got to think that there was ample security screening before entering the arena. Tipper Gore’s husband might be the next president and she’s giving a speech in DC which is a perpetual terrorism target. Why wasn’t he prevented from bringing the camera in the Arena? For AU to drop the ball like that then use the incident to discipline him is ridiculous.

28

This, at least, makes sense, if such a rule did in fact exist. The “well, it was in our contract with Tipper” argument is completely bogus.

Anyone who has gone to university knows that there is no organization on earth that can botch a situation as spectacularly as a big school administration.

29

I think the crux of the matter is whether the contract prohibits all taping, or just taping by university officials. Without seeing the contract or getting clarification on this point, it’s difficult to discuss the case.

And I’m pretty sure that such a clause would be legal: there are circumstances in which politicians speak “off the record,” and it’s perfectly acceptable to forbid recording devices on such occasions, I believe. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue; it’s a contract issue. I used to think conservatives held contracts in high regard.

That said, it sounds pretty silly to kick the poor sap out of school over this matter. Unless there are additional facts about the case that we don’t know, a much lesser sanction would likely be appropriate.

Daniel

30

I think this is another example of how AU has screwed the pooch on this one. They physically seized a guy’s tape and took disciplinary action against him for an incident that was more easily avoided by AU than by the student. That’s easy enough to understand.

In their defense, they cite a contract but don’t really explain why the contract is relevant to the issue. They look like bullies and are losing the PR battle.

I haven’t seen the contract, but it’s fairly standard to prohibit all taping. It wouldn’t really provide any intellectual property protection to only prohibit AU from taping. That would allow anybody to buy a ticket, record the speech and sell it.

The problem I have is the manner in which AU attempted to uphold it’s contractual obligations. They let him skate through security and didn’t announce he wasn’t allowed to videotape the speech. Then, half way through the speech they tell him he can’t videotape the speech and tell him he has to surrender the tape. So, they’ve given the guy mixed messages then try to take his tape. I think a lot of people would object to that and try to prevent security from taking the tape, especially since they made it unclear whether he was allowed to tape or not and whether or not they had the authority to seize the tape. For all the student knew, a couple of security guys with an authority complex decided to take the tape.

This example isn’t really a contract issue. The reason reporters adhere to “off the record” rules is to ensure future access to the politician. They don’t actually enter into a contract, they just understand that printing off the record comments would get them cut off from future information.

31

Everyone, all together now - The Bill of Rights bars certain actions by government, not private entities. If George W. Bush came over to your house to hold a focus group meeting, damn straight you could keep the press out of your house.

American U. (more accurately The American University - always loved that bit of hubris :D) is a private college. It can bar the press from its premises as it sees fit.

The contract is irrelevant to whether American U. could stop the videotaping - the contract between American U. and Mrs. Gore is simply the rationale American U. put forward to explain their actions. The plain fact is that American U. owned and controlled the arena where Mrs. Gore spoke, and could impose any conditions on entry that they saw fit. Heck, if they wanted to, they could have required that every one attending the speech wear funny hats and Spandex.
Under the American U. - Gore contract is that Mrs. Gore could have sued American U. if her speech was videotaped. They controlled the arena and failed to abide by the contract. That possibility makes American U.'s conduct a touch more rational, but it is not what allowed them to act as they did.

About this “theft of intellectual property” business - what is American U.'s standing to bring that charge? After all, the speech was Mrs. Gore’s intellectual property, not the University’s. And it doesn’t appear that Mrs. Gore pressed charges.

Overall, I would say that American U.'s actions to prevent the taping of the speech were legal and perhaps even necessary under the Gore-American U. contract. They were also completely boneheaded - they should have announced that videotaping and recording were prohibited before the speech started.

The disciplinary charges, expect for the theft of intellectual property one, were also proper. Again, though, boneheaded - they probably would have been smarter simply to stop the taping and then let the matter drop.

Sua

32

It’s possible that the AU Code of Conduct prohibits theft of intellectual property. This is just a guess on my part, but I wouldn’t be surprised if universities included this kind of thing especially with the student access to the internet and the ease of stealing IP.

33

But that’s a contract issue between the persons engaged in conversation: Public Figure A asks Reporter B if the conversation is off the record, and if the answer is yes, A tells B a few things he wouldn’t have otherwise said.

I doubt Tipper asked her audience at AU if her comments would be off the record.

Sua - would the videotaping per se constitute theft of intellectual property? Or would it depend on the kid’s use of the videotape? (Or on what AU’s videotaping policy for Bender Arena was, and whether they adequately informed attendees about that policy?)

34

Some additional information from AU’s campus newsletter.

These seem to be the applicable provisions of the Student Conduct Code:

II. A. Every student has a duty to understand and abide by the rules and regulations of the university. Ignorance of a rule or regulation will not be an acceptable defense.

VI. Prohibited Conduct - I. theft of property or services or knowingly possessing stolen property

VI. M. entry, attempt to enter, or remaining without authority or permission in any university office, residence hall room, university sponsored event, or university premise

VI. S. willfully failing to comply with the directions of university officials, including public safety officers or residential life staff members, acting in performance of their duties

I assume that admission to the Bender Arena was on a ticket basis, and it is stated that Gore was paid by the event organizers. Wouldn’t this then make the speech a “performance,” with copyright protection for the contents thereof, and not a public event (such as a press conference or clearly public remark)?

I don’t think the university has a duty to inform attendees of all prohibited media. Protected performances are generally protected in all forms of sound and image recording. And while the protection is for the performer, in practice doesn’t the venue have a contractual or fiduciary duty to ensure such protection? If I whip out a camera at a theater, I’d expect venue goons to yank it away from me, and not have Michael Flatley jig me back to the mezzanine.

As an aside, AU has always been notorious in its handling of student dissent. In the late 1980s the university christened its new recreation complex the Adnan Khashoggi Center, after the Saudi arms dealer. Dissent was simply not admitted.

Other scandals during my time there - The president before Ladner stepped down (but retained professorial duties) after admitting that he actively stalked a preteen babysitter, and the provost calling in to the Geraldo show to defend the university against allegations that poor campus security led to a case of in-dorm date rape. Harvard on the Potomac, they called it.

Loco, '90

35

Zoff:

Much as I appreciate your reference to Rush, this is a rather circular statement, wouldn’t you say?

36

At what point were any of the players in this incident identified as “liberals”? This is a straw man. Most people these days prefer to judge each issue on its merits rather than be ideologically pigeonholed like that.

37

I’m not Sua, but let me throw my two cents in. The ticket Whetmore used to get in is simply a license that allowed him entry to the property for the specified event. The license is generally revocable at will, so he could be removed from the property for taping the speech even if he didn’t know it was prohibited. They could have kicked everybody out who was sitting in an odd numbered seat, if they were so inclined. Regardless of whether the taping was a copyright infringement, AU was within its rights to remove him since they have the power to revoke the license at will.

The issue of copyright is relevant to the subsequent disciplinary hearing, however. I’m not an expert so I’ll defer to the AU law professor quoted in the AU student newspaper. While AU was within its rights to remove him, the disciplinary hearing sounds a little bit like a kangaroo court. AU seems intent on creating a martyr.

D’oh! I meant the band Rush. Probably not the best band to use as an example. Maybe I should have used Twisted Sister, given the history between them and Tipper when she was with PMRC.

38

Damn straight the band Rush was the best example to use, Zoff, that’s why I responded. Just saw them in Milwaukee and I can’t think of another performance I’d rather have on video. :cool:

39

not trying to be contrary, but doesn’t an organization that receives government funds have an obligation to uphold certain ideals?

jb

40

Perhaps a moral obligation - though I would probably dispute even that - but certainly not a legal one.

Sua