F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir.2000) (“The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.”); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir.1995) (recognizing a “First Amendment right to film matters of public interest”); Demarest v. Athol/ Orange Cmty. Television, Inc., 188 F.Supp.2d 82, 94-95 (D.Mass.2002) (finding it “highly probable” that filming of a public official on street outside his home by contributors to public access cable show was protected by the First Amendment, and noting that, “[ajt base, plaintiffs had a constitutionally protected right to record matters of public interest”); Channel 10, Inc. v. Gunnarson, 337 F.Supp. 634, 638 (D.Minn.1972) (<HOLDING>); cf. Schnell v. City of Chi, 407 F.2d 1084,
holding that the video games at issue are expressive and qualify as speech for purposes of the first amendment holding that the first amendment protects communicative aspects of video games holding that police interference with television newsmans filming of crime scene and seizure of video camera constituted unlawful prior restraint under first amendment holding that unlawful restraint could not even be an included offense holding that there was no fourth amendment seizure where delivery of package was not delayed because it is the extent of the interference with the defendants possessory interest in the property that determines whether a seizure has occurred