I believe that the police can’t give verbal restriction at a public/open meeting, because if this is a public meeting, then you should be expecting cameras to be put to your face. News reporters will flood in the second the meeting opens. However, if you wish to not have cameras or phones being put to your face, then simply make this meeting a private one and then outsiders wouldn’t have permission to record and news reporters won’t come flocking in, because they know they would be fired or get into serious trouble if they start recording at a private meeting.
If a Politician asked the police to enforce no videos at an open meeting, I’m positive that the police would answer them on along the lines of “We can’t do that” or “We can’t enforce that.” The politicians shouldn’t ask this at an open meeting, unless they just dumb.
The 1st amendment also backs up this situation; “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.”
The first amendment makes it clear that there will be no laws prohibiting number of things, including the press. So, someone taking a video is an example of the press according to the 1st amendment.
In conclusion, I believe that the police can’t give verbal restriction at an open meeting, because it’s a public meeting where anyone can come and people are free to record. Also the 1st amendment helps to back this up.
Thanks for reading this essay. I hope you liked or learned something new from it. I’ll post more soon and have a great rest of your day!