Christine O'Donnell threatens to sue radio station, retreats when reminded about the 1st Amendment

Another Facepalm moment from Christine O'Donnell

Christine O'Donnell threatens to sue radio station, retreats when reminded about the 1st Amendment
Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

latimesblogs.latimes.com...

Christine O'Donnell is still having trouble understanding that pesky 1st Amendment.

After a 20-minute radio interview with an AM station in Wilmington, Del., on Tuesday, a representative of the Republican nominee for Senate demanded that the station turn over a video that had been made of the interview so it could be destroyed.

O'Donnell's campaign manager, Matt Moran, called the station, WDEL, and threatened to "crush" the broadcaster with a lawsuit if the unauthorized video wasn't released to the "tea party" darling, the station reported.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f94dbb7da7cc.jpg[/atsimg]

what made them want to remove the video and recording of it so badly? you'd think that people would understand the 1st amendment a little easier being as it is pretty close to the beginning of the constitution...what an idiotic sue happy campaign manager.

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are


If there was a contract to do the interview that did not include allowing a video to be made, she has EVERY right to sue.

Oh wait, I forgot, you type folks do not believe in contract law right?

Talk about FACEPALM.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

 

If there was a contract to do the interview that did not include allowing a video to be made, she has EVERY right to sue.

Oh wait, I forgot, you type folks do not believe in contract law right?

Talk about FACEPALM.

That is not how contract law works.

She is no longer threatening to sue.

She admits she had no legal basis to threaten to sue.

All right there in the article cited by the OP.
Talk about a facepalm.

When you read the entirety of the original source, you see that the attorney representing O'Donnell's camp later called the station and apologized for the campaign manager's actions and stated that as far as they were concerned there was nothing wrong with it. It sounds to me like the campaign manager bit off a little too much too soon. I don't necessarily know if the taking of the video was disclosed to O'Donnell's people prior which might be an issue but soon after the issue, it was cleared up and over. I dont see what the big deal is about. A threat to sue and then the attorney smoothing things over is much different than an actual suit being filed. It sounds to me that the radio station just wanted to plug themselves and their webcast by reporting this story to the news outlet.

reply to post by Curiousisall


You must have MISSED this part of my comment-

If there was a contract to do the interview that did not include allowing a video to be made, she has EVERY right to sue.

Ooops, who should be putting palm to face?

This is why when agreements are made to radio and tv stations, contracts should be written up. Otherwise tv and radio stations can do anything they want.

Kinda like how Katie Couric edited the video of Sarah Palin instead of airing the entire thing. Remember that? Or do SOME people have selective memory or have SELECTIVE reading ability?

When doing an interview, politicians should write up a contract that includes such things as-

1) Any and all airing of the interview shall be in it's entirety. This way no context can be misconstrued.
2) Any editing must be approved of by the said interviewee prior to airing.
3) Any and all subsequent release of said interview, will be approved of by the interviewee.

There are other items I would get in writing, but you get the reason why I am stating this. The MSM has ALWAYS taken things out of context and used little sound bites to further their agenda. This goes for all sides of the MSM.

I remember the interview on Maddow that she attempted to take out of context of a politician from Washington. He chewed her up and spit her out. She continually attempted to take things out of context from earlier writings of his, but I am sure he had an agreement in writing that she was not allowed to cut up the interview. This was then aired in it's entirety and made Maddow out for what she was attempting to do.

The reason I am sure this manager got pissed was because he/she never got a written agreement. Meaning the manager screwed up.

reply to post by here4awhile


apparently there was footage of an aid giving her notes, during he interview. apparently she thinks it made her look like an idiot. (no help needed). but hey, i bet she knows what minimum wage is.. umm.. never mind...

reply to post by notsofast


getting notes during an interview is nothing to be ashamed of. All that says is that she didnt have every single fact in her head before the interview. I think it shows that she was prepared and had notes on the side should this situation arise. I would rather someone refer to their crib sheet than make up something not so true on the spot to avoid looking like an 'idiot'

In the video you see her react to a question she clearly didn't like, and started snapping her fingers at her aide then grab his arm and push him at the questioner, apparently to get him to stop talking. She knew it would make her look bad (flying into a snit always does) so her campaign threatened to "crush" the station is they didn't destroy the tape.

Real class act.

The video itself would never have gone anywhere, it was her reaction afterward that made it interesting. Do as we say or we will CRUSH you. Yeah, let's put her in charge.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


i'm not debating any subject matter as to what was on the notes or what it means to have notes brought to you. the question was why did they not want the video released, it was the notes and something about hand gestures... i don't know. but in my opinion, she doesn't need any help looking stupid. sorry, nbut that's just me

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

You must have MISSED this part of my comment-

If there was a contract to do the interview that did not include allowing a video to be made, she has EVERY right to sue.

Ooops, who should be putting palm to face?

Still you. I saw it. I read it. I laughed. Then I replied. I guess you missed this part of my comment-

That is not how contract law works.

Back to sniffing your hand now.

Surprised she isn't trying to sue this guy:

I had a one night stand with Christine O'Donnell

It's from the Gawker, and contains notable items such as this:

When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by.