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.
Too bad any editing cannot and never will be proven. This will end up a he said, she said thing with the video evidence on one side and nothing but hearsay on the other.
Really? And you know this how?
The CA Attorney General seems to disagree with you.
"In April, Attorney General Jerry Brown investigated O’Keefe’s allegations against ACORN and found that O’Keefe had significantly edited the ACORN footage."
The links you provided do not apply to this situation. He didn't make any money off this or any personal gain. So what is he suing for again?
"The Legislature by this chapter intends to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state"
"you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2"
A 4th grader would understand this law, pretty clear cut. O'keefe and Giles broke the law. The violated the person's right to privacy. If you have a problem with the law, take it up with the California Legislature. In the meanwhile thelaw stands, and they clearly violated it
Wow, so now you're the judge, jury and executioner? All without even seeing the "evi-dunce" too.
Care to prove they falsified anything?
Apparently, others did see the evidence and the judicial system noted that the tape was significantly edited.
Are you saying that no one should be convicted of anything unless you personally see the evidence.
I certainly hope you at least pull jury duty once in a while.
Other than that, you trust elected and appointed people in a position to review the evidence.
That's how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
The links you provided do not apply to this situation. He didn't make any money off this or any personal gain. So what is he suing for again?
There was personal gain from Faux.
Are you insisting that lying is a good thing?
The CA Attorney General seems to disagree with you.
"In April, Attorney General Jerry Brown investigated O’Keefe’s allegations against ACORN and found that O’Keefe had significantly edited the ACORN footage."
How did he come to this conclusion? You can't tell how much of anything was edited just by watching it. This is just an attempt to save embarassment by the guy who offered to get the girls smuggled in through Mexico.
That law does not apply and you will see when it goes to court. That law is explicately for the situation that you are recording 2 OTHER people having a private conversation. It has nothing to do with you recording YOUR OWN conversation. You'll see how this gets dropped.
Michael Moore doesn't use hidden cameras to record conversations without their knowledge, which is the premise of the lawsuit. He has a huge camera and a film crew, he even carries a microphone. Sorry, not a good example.
My post was in reference to this and this. I shouldn't have quoted "illegal" - I skimmed the thread and composed my reply too quickly (some of us actually work for a living and don't have the time to study everything you guys say), but other than the use of that one word, my post stands quite well.
Bob said that they "fabricate[d] their stories." said that Fox should be sued. Where's the same level of disdain from these people for Michael Moore, who's the modern day poster child for such behaviour? Requested example: Moore took two different speeches by Heston, stitched pieces of them together to make it appear that he said something he didn't, and went on to win an Oscar for his deception.
The difference between Moore and these two is that Moore is more experienced, has the funds to run every second of footage past a lawyer before publishing it and he has more talent. Tactically speaking, though, they're very similar, and that was my point.
Neither side of the political fence is free of these double standards, but the left seems to not even try to correct or even hide them. They simply don't care - they're right and everyone else is wrong, and if you disagree, then you're just stupid. Well, stupid is as stupid does, and anyone that can be such a blatant and unapologetic hypocrite is pretty darn stupid.
Last edited by CaseyB; 07-13-2010 at 02:39 PM..
Reason: rude - use the member's full name
How did he come to this conclusion? You can't tell how much of anything was edited just by watching it. This is just an attempt to save embarassment by the guy who offered to get the girls smuggled in through Mexico.
Why aren't people humiliated when they grandstand and pronounce-- when they declare and obviate-- and they are wrong.
I know if I were to do that, I'd slither away in shame.
The guy was trying to illicit information about the smuggling and immediately called the police. He has nothing to be embarrassed about. People who keep screaming that he did something wrong, or that O'Keefe and Giles were in the right, however SHOULD be embarrassed as they have been proved wrong.
How did he come to this conclusion? You can't tell how much of anything was edited just by watching it. This is just an attempt to save embarassment by the guy who offered to get the girls smuggled in through Mexico.
They have this new thing now called 'forensics.' Of course, it used to be much easier to tell where and when film was spliced together, but, I imagine it is possible to do the same with video, possibly using internal timestamps or the like. Everything has a traceable signature.
Apparently, others did see the evidence and the judicial system noted that the tape was significantly edited.
Are you saying that no one should be convicted of anything unless you personally see the evidence.
I certainly hope you at least pull jury duty once in a while.
Other than that, you trust elected and appointed people in a position to review the evidence.
That's how it works.
There was personal gain from Faux.
Are you insisting that lying is a good thing?
FOX is not part of the lawsuit. Stick to the facts of the matter.
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.
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.
