Will Demarest et. al. vs. Athol/Orange come back to bite David Gauthier's CENSORSHIP POLICIES

4,227 ALL-TIME PAGE VIEWS
_________________________________________________________
DAVID GAUTHIER ATTEMPTED TO SILENCE A PRODUCER FROM MAKING A MEDFORD PARKING METER VIDEO, WHICH WAS THE MEMBER'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT

"it is integral to the concept of PEG channels that such use be free from any editorial control or supervision by the cable operator." H.R.Rep. No. 98-934, at 47 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4684. The Report explained that,

Public access channels are often the video equivalent of the speaker's soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet. They provide groups and individuals who generally have not had access to the electronic media with the opportunity *85 to become sources of information in the electronic marketplace of ideas.

Id. at 30, 4667. Thus, § 531(e) provided that "a cable operator shall not exercise any editorial control over any public educational, or governmental use of channel capacity...."

(the Cable Operator refers to Comcast, Verizon, RCN, Charter, cable TV providers, but the P/E/G stations themselves are prohibited from censoring programming,

they aren't even supposed to look at it in advance.

David Gauthier intentionally, willfully and MALICIOUSLY walked into an editing bay to STOP and CENSOR a member-in-good-standing from creating a show that was of great public interest to the residents of Winchester.

What happens when your child creates something offensive to David Gauthier, say your child is on a field trip and wants to tape Arlington parking enforcement,

and Gauthier STOPS your child from editing because Gauthier doesn't think Winchester residents should see

parking enforcement in the town that borders Winchester.

DAVID GAUTHIER MUST BE DISCIPLINED AND FIRED FOR ENGAGING IN CENSORSHIP

MELODIE WING, ALLAN J. EYDEN AND PETER PONGRATZ NEED TO BE REMOVED FOR ENABLING THE WRONGFUL CONDUCT OF THE SALEM RESIDENT,

DAVID GAUTHIER

GAUTHIER ENGAGED IN CENSORSHIP AND HIS FALSE READING OF WINCAM POLICIES DEMANDS GAUTHIER'S TERMINATION

ANY RESIDENT CAN BE CENSORED IF GAUTHIER'S WRONGFUL CONDUCT GOES UNPUNISHED.

EXHIBIT A IS AN E MAIL FROM GAUTHIER WHICH WILL, MOST LIKELY, BE IN A COURT CASE, SO IT WON'T BE PUBLISHED HERE.

HERE'S EXHIBIT b

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/188/82/2576984/

Demarest v. Athol/Orange Community Television, 188 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D. Mass. 2002)

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts - 188 F. Supp. 2d 82 (2002) 
February 28, 2002

---

188 F. Supp. 2d 82 (2002)

Patricia DEMAREST and Vicki Dunn, Plaintiffs,
v.
ATHOL/ORANGE COMMUNITY TELEVISION, INC., et. al., Defendants.

No. Civ.A.01-30129-MAP.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

February 28, 2002.

*83 Harris Freeman, William Newman, American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Northampton, MA, for plaintiffs.

Peter J. Epstein, Boston, MA, for defendants. 

Rather than being tailored to protect legitimate interests in privacy, the Release Form Provision made Athol's news makers news editors. By refusing to sign a release form, Athol's news makers could ensure that their images did not appear on AOTV. It is highly probable that the filming which gave rise to Demarest's suspension will be found to be constitutionally protected.[7]

The balance of harms weighs in the plaintiffs' favor as well. As noted above, AOTV may not so crudely subordinate the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs to some unlimited notions of privacy. Its mission is to provide the community with a channel open to diverse programming. AOTV will not suffer the slightest injury by issuance of the injunction. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, face irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.