It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video
— By the MoJo News Team
| Wed Sep. 19, 2012 1:00 AM PDT
Below is a complete transcript, produced by Mother Jones, of the entire unedited Romney videos that we published on Tuesday. (See our exclusive coverage of Romney writing off Obama voters and trashing the Mideast peace process at his recent fundraiser in Florida.)
When must you get permission from everyone involved before recording?
Twelve states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington (Hawai'i is also in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place). Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent.
NOTE: The First Amendment right to record does NOT give you the right to interfere in the performance of officials' duties, or violate generally applicable laws. You may still face criminal prosecution or civil liability if, while recording, you: interfere with an arrest; trespass into secure government areas or private property; fail to respond to legitimate measures by law enforcement to control riots or disturbances; or otherwise interfere with official activity or violate private rights.
Filming individuals in their homes is always a more risky venture. In a Minnesota case, a veterinarian making a house call obtained permission to bring a student with him, but failed to inform the homeowners that the student was an employee of a television station. The student surreptitiously videotaped the doctor’s treatment of the family cat in their home. The state Court of Appeals upheld the trespass claim because, unlike cases where the taping took place in an office, the family had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. (Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.)
Possession and publication
Date: August 1, 2012
Journalists should be aware that wiretap laws raise issues beyond just whether they have met consent requirements. The federal law and many state laws explicitly make it illegal to possess — and particularly to publish — the contents of an illegal wiretap, even if it is made by someone else. Some states that allow recordings make the distribution or publication of those otherwise legal recordings a crime.
Taken together, Bartnicki and Snyder may suggest broad protection for the press against laws that prohibit publishing the contents of an illegal wiretap. Bartnicki held that when broadcasting the tape of an illegally recorded conversation, the First Amendment right to publish a matter of public concern could outweigh the privacy rights of those recorded. Snyder, in turn, demonstrated that a very broad range of content can be considered to be of public concern—including even a highly offensive protest directed at a private funeral. But until more such controversies work their way through the courts, the boundaries of the right to publish the contents of an illegal recording will remain unclear.
The 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (amending the federal wiretap law) makes it illegal to possess or divulge the contents of any illegally intercepted communication.
An intrusion on seclusion claim is a special form of invasion of privacy. It applies when someone intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another. In most states, to make out an intrusion on seclusion claim, a plaintiff must generally establish 4 elements:
•First, that the defendant, without authorization, must have intentionally invaded the private affairs of the plaintiff;
•Second, the invasion must be offensive to a reasonable person;
•Third, the matter that the defendant intruded upon must involve a private matter; and
•Finally, the intrusion must have caused mental anguish or suffering to the plaintiff.
Jimmy Carter’s grandson describes furtive efforts to arrange release of secret Romney video
By Associated Press, Published: September 18AP
WASHINGTON — Midway through a routine Internet search, James Carter IV stumbled upon a video that just didn’t seem right.
The grandson of former President Jimmy Carter and a self-fashioned Democratic opposition researcher, the younger Carter had watched countless hours of footage of Republican Mitt Romney and made it a habit to search YouTube every few days for keywords like “Romney” and “Republicans.”
“The hidden camera video — it was all blurred out at the beginning, and it was mysterious,” Carter said. “It piqued my interest.”
What followed was a delicate, concerted effort to convince the source — still unknown to the public — that Carter could be trusted, and that the world had to see the rest of what was surreptitiously recorded as Romney spoke in May to donors who had paid $50,000 a person to attend the private fundraiser.
Soon after, Carter persuaded the source to trust Corn with the full video — on the condition that he keep the source’s identity a secret. Corn ran with it, using clues in the video to triangulate when and where it had been recorded.
Originally posted by grey580
It all boils down to this question.
Did Romney have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Mother Jones, the left-wing magazine that released a controversial video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's remarks to a fundraiser in May, now admits that it has no full tape of what Romney said, and that its video is missing "one to two minutes" at the most important moment.
Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Libertygal
It all boils down to this question.
Did Romney have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
When you're inviting people to hear you give a speech and meet you in person.
How much privacy are you really expecting?
Originally posted by Terminal1
Just to add...
Romney called for the whole tape to be released. Does that change anything, even after the fact?
Originally posted by loam
reply to post by grey580
Originally posted by grey580
It all boils down to this question.
Did Romney have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Not quite. It's also driven by the State this took place in.
Searched for that, but couldn't find where this took place.
Anyone else know?
ETA:
I see in the second post now it was Florida?edit on 19-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)
Later, this test was arranged into a two prong test for determining the existence of privacy: If (1) the individual "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy," and (2) society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable, then there is a right of privacy in the given circumstance.[5] This test was adopted by the majority in Smith v. Maryland.
Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by Libertygal
I would argue.
en.wikipedia.org...
Later, this test was arranged into a two prong test for determining the existence of privacy: If (1) the individual "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy," and (2) society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable, then there is a right of privacy in the given circumstance.[5] This test was adopted by the majority in Smith v. Maryland.
While he may be in a private home. He is inviting people to come hear him speak. Anyone can come and hear him speak.... who can of course pay 50K per plate.
That is not private.
consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people.
Disclosing recordings: The state prohibits the disclosure of any intercepted oral or electronic communication if that person knows or has reason to know the information was obtained in violation of the state’s wiretapping statutes. Fla. Stat. § 934.03(1)(c). Similar bars exist for individuals who distribute images in violation of the state’s video voyeurism law. Fla. Stat. § 810.145(3), (4).
Originally posted by antonia
If it was illegal Romney's camp would already be doing something against Mother Jones considering the state the Romney campaign is in at the moment. The fact that they aren't is enough to tell you it's probably legal.edit on 19-9-2012 by antonia because: added a thought
Originally posted by antonia
If it was illegal Romney's camp would already be doing something against Mother Jones considering the state the Romney campaign is in at the moment. The fact that they aren't is enough to tell you it's probably legal.edit on 19-9-2012 by antonia because: added a thought
Originally posted by loam
Here is an additional interesting tidbit:
Disclosing recordings: The state prohibits the disclosure of any intercepted oral or electronic communication if that person knows or has reason to know the information was obtained in violation of the state’s wiretapping statutes. Fla. Stat. § 934.03(1)(c). Similar bars exist for individuals who distribute images in violation of the state’s video voyeurism law. Fla. Stat. § 810.145(3), (4).
Interesting implications.