U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-15-2018, 11:07 AM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,242 posts, read 4,786,680 times
Reputation: 4236

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
Exactly, that's why I said, "even if she could sue" meaning IF she had anything to sue over.
"even if she could sue" .. anyone "could" sue over anything, and they often do. If the taper had never mentioned that she was recording the conversation then the mouthy idiot does have a legal standing to sue.
Quote:
My point was, she'd have to admit she was drunk and driving, said something stupid, knew the woman was recording, etc. Even if she could sue, she'd look like an even bigger moron if she did.
Why would she "have" to admit she was drunk and driving? She wouldn't. Saying stupid things while drinking and driving has nothing to do with taping laws. And, even IF the taper brought it up then all the girl has to do is to deny it, it would be up to the taper to prove that the idiot had been drinking. Where is the hard proof - police and/or doctors statements? There is none, the taper wouldn't be able to prove squat. Even if the taper could prove it, it has nothing to do with the taping laws and would not affect the courts judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the taper.
As for actually filing the suit, there is nothing wrong with a person trying to defend their legal rights, but imo, it would be a frivolous suit and would bring more attention to her boneheaded comments to the other person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2018, 11:16 AM
Status: "We're all entitled to my own opinion." (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
17,419 posts, read 8,561,197 times
Reputation: 18124
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee View Post
"even if she could sue" .. anyone "could" sue over anything, and they often do. If the taper had never mentioned that she was recording the conversation then the mouthy idiot does have a legal standing to sue.
Why would she "have" to admit she was drunk and driving? She wouldn't. Saying stupid things while drinking and driving has nothing to do with taping laws. And, even IF the taper brought it up then all the girl has to do is to deny it, it would be up to the taper to prove that the idiot had been drinking. Where is the hard proof - police and/or doctors statements? There is none, the taper wouldn't be able to prove squat. Even if the taper could prove it, it has nothing to do with the taping laws and would not affect the courts judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the taper.
As for actually filing the suit, there is nothing wrong with a person trying to defend their legal rights, but imo, it would be a frivolous suit and would bring more attention to her boneheaded comments to the other person.
She would have no grounds to sue - but yes, people can sue for anything if you can find someone to take the case or you want to represent yourself.

Not sure about Oregon, but in general you do not need to tell anyone you're recording them in a public setting. Recording in private is a different story and you need to tell people they're being recorded in certain states.

No, she wouldn't have to admit she was drunk. She could say nothing and let people assume she's an @XX instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 11:31 AM
 
13,006 posts, read 5,403,979 times
Reputation: 8021
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14 View Post
Protection of morons who do and say moronic things in public, you mean. Sorry, there are no laws that protect morons from having their moronic public behavior exposed for all to see. Nor should there be.

Then she flees so she doesn't have to face the consequences, leaving Mommy holding the bag.

What a brave little racist she is.
There should be protections. This was some stupid squabble that we didnít even see how it started. For this the womanís life is ruined? If tv shows have to get consent, then there should be some expectation of privacy on platforms like YouTube or Twitter. Who knows, the next person could be you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 11:35 AM
 
13,006 posts, read 5,403,979 times
Reputation: 8021
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
Exactly, that's why I said, "even if she could sue" meaning IF she had anything to sue over.

My point was, she'd have to admit she was drunk and driving, said something stupid, knew the woman was recording, etc. Even if she could sue, she'd look like an even bigger moron if she did.
She may not have even been drunk, just mad. We donít know what was said prior to the recorded conversation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 11:38 AM
 
13,006 posts, read 5,403,979 times
Reputation: 8021
Quote:
Originally Posted by aileesic View Post
If I go around saying and doing hateful, nasty things to other people, I should expect some consquences sooner or later. It seems the law about recording audio only makes it easier for some to say and do just about whatever they want without much consequence.
What consequences do you wish for? This IS a free country. And we are supposed to have due process, but people are being convicted in the court of public opinion and unable to keep their job or get hired somewhere else. What the woman said was pretty tame compared to things Iíve heard said in arguments. Again, we only see what the poster wants us to see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 11:38 AM
 
15,057 posts, read 4,917,021 times
Reputation: 10677
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
There should be protections. This was some stupid squabble that we didnít even see how it started. For this the womanís life is ruined? If tv shows have to get consent, then there should be some expectation of privacy on platforms like YouTube or Twitter.
But we did see how it ended. Even knowing she was being recorded she just couldn't stop herself. Privilege and stupidity did her in. I hope it will be a good life lesson for her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
Who knows, the next person could be you.
If I go off on a racist or bigoted rant in public, then I will deserve the consequences of my actions as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 11:46 AM
 
13,006 posts, read 5,403,979 times
Reputation: 8021
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14 View Post
But we did see how it ended. Even knowing she was being recorded she just couldn't stop herself. Privilege and stupidity did her in. I hope it will be a good life lesson for her.



If I go off on a racist or bigoted rant in public, then I will deserve the consequences of my actions as well.
If you were in a heated argument and said something someone deemed racist or bigoted, I think you might feel differently when you’re doxxed and your boss fires you and then you can’t get hired because anyone can do a simple google search and see you all over the Internet. This has ruined lives over heated words. You know people say things they wouldn’t normally say when they’re in arguments right? Shoot, we even give lesser sentences to people who murder someone in the heat of the moment. It’s called a crime of passion. And this is just words in an argument. No one threw a punch. They didn’t even get out of the car. It’s ridiculous!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 11:54 AM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,242 posts, read 4,786,680 times
Reputation: 4236
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
She would have no grounds to sue
Why not? If the taper did not tell her she was taping the conversation then she certainly does have grounds to sue.

Quote:
- but yes, people can sue for anything if you can find someone to take the case or you want to represent yourself.

Not sure about Oregon, but in general you do not need to tell anyone you're recording them in a public setting. Recording in private is a different story and you need to tell people they're being recorded in certain states.

No, she wouldn't have to admit she was drunk. She could say nothing and let people assume she's an @XX instead.
I had posted the taping laws for Oregon previously in this thread. http://www.city-data.com/forum/53090129-post23.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 01:20 PM
 
2,607 posts, read 3,709,373 times
Reputation: 1830
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee View Post
I had posted the pertinent parts of the law in a previous post. This part of that law --> "specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained." backs me up. Simply telling someone that they are being recorded isn't specific enough. If you want legal cases then feel free to go dig 'em up.

spe∑cif∑i∑cal∑ly
spəˈsifək(ə)lē/
adverb
adverb: specifically

1.
in a way that is exact and clear; precisely.
"a workman called at the time I specifically stated I would not be in"


I wondered that myself.
Youíre defining specific based on your opinion. Courts clarify the law, not you.

So again, Iíll wait.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 01:21 PM
 
4,969 posts, read 2,501,888 times
Reputation: 2725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
How is this racist?
A person of light had an argument with a POC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top