(1980), appeal dismissed sub nom., Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 102 S.Ct. 867, 70 L. Ed.2d 855 (1982). Yet, although it may afford greater free speech protection, plaintiff points to no language in the constitutional provision suggesting it is expansive enough to encompass a right to videotape public proceedings, much less expressly identifying one. Nor does plaintiff cite to any authoritative case law recognizing such a state constitutional right, and we are aware of none. Instead, plaintiff relies on the lower court’s decision in Maurice River Tp.; however, the public’s right to videotape school board meetings recognized in that opinion was based on the common law, not the First Amendment or state constitution. Maurice River Tp., supra, 187 N.J.Super. at 568, 455 A.2d 563 (<HOLDING>). Our decision on appeal also declined to find
recognizing common law right of access to judicial documents recognizing common law privileges holding that an opinion of a potential danger to others is not sufficient to support a commitment under this standard holding this right is bottomed  upon common law commitment to paraphrasing woodrow wilson open government openly arrived at holding that federal government agencies have a common law right to interagency setoff