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.

 

Was Romney taped illegally? Was the publication in Mother Jones Illegal?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
I don't think it is just me that feels this way, so again, it bothers me that this isn't disturbing to you.


Perhaps I live my life a little different than most. I say what I mean and I try to be as honest as possible. I dont hide my feelings in public only to release them privately when I think nobody is watching or listening.

I would be careful to not try to compare this to some sort of thought police type senerio either. We are not talking about a random person at home discussing the government with their spouse. We are talking about a public figure discussing his plan for the running of OUR country.




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 



Do you think I or those who hold my view also favor those examples?


Doesn't matter what I think you or anyone else thinks. As long as regular citizens can have no expectation of privacy, neither should anyone aspiring (or conspiring) to rule those citizens. That's always been our problem: secrecy by those who determine our fate and our blind faith in them.


PATRICK HENRY

What then are we to think of the motives and designs of those men who are urging the implicit and immediate adoption of the proposed government; are they fearful, that if you exercise your good sense and discernment, you will discover the masqued aristocracy, that they are attempting to smuggle upon you under the suspicious garb of republicanism? When we find that the principal agents in this business are the very men who fabricated the form of government, it certainly ought to be conclusive evidence of their invidious design to deprive us of our liberties. The circumstances attending this matter, are such as should in a peculiar manner excite your suspicion; it might not be useless to take a review of some of them.


www.wepin.com...



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
If you are a political figure, or an employee of the United States government, anything you say or do in regards to your JOB, is considered public record. Romney is running for president. Therefore anything he says or does is part of his job as a government official and public domain. Regardless if it was a house or a stadium, he was invited to give a speech that was part of his line of work. So there is no privacy. If he really expected not to get recorded, they would have asked for cell phones to be turned off, or hand over the equipment.

Now if this were a conversation between friends that had nothing to do with a speech he was going to give then there would be a privacy concern. But the fact is, this was done in an open setting with more than a few friends.

To be honest, it doesn't matter how much of the tape is allegedly missing. If he had said anything of importance after the recording stopped, he could have released such a statement instead of calling for all of a tape to be released when there probably isn't any tape left.

There is no context here. He said what he said and meant it. He doesn't care about anyone who doesn't have money. If anyone running for public office, including the US presidency thinks this away about any % of Americans, they don't deserve to be in the White House or any other elected form of office.

"Liberty and justice for all..." not just the rich.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Libertygal


The conversation was about probable violation of privacy and the handing off of possible illegal audio/video to the media, who then used it in a "gotcha" type of attack. However, as was later introduced into the conversation, when this was done by James O'Keefe within LEGAL limits with ACORN, and outing Obama's connections with ACORN, the media was all over him about how illegal it was (even though it wasn't until the Congresswomans office incident).




Your sentence doesn't make much sense. O'Keefe was not prosecuted for the ACORN recording so why are you bringing it up? The only thing he was prosecuted for was the incident you mentioned in parentheses. He was prosecuted for attempting to hack into her phone system to record conversations. This in unquestionably illegal. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is no legal argument that for phone hacking. There is a legal argument that the conversation Romney engaged in was a public one.




It wouldn't matter who this was, I would be questioning the varacity of the legality of obtaining this recording.


I seriously doubt that, but that's another conversation.
edit on 19-9-2012 by antonia because: added a thought


^^Again with the political stabbies? God, could you quit it?

Read what I said again. When this happened with O'Keefe and the ACORN deal, he was attacked and confronted on it being illegal. He had to fight quite the legal battle, and get attorneys for that. No, he was not prosecuted, but not for lack of trying.

And he wasn't prosecuted for attempting to hack into her phone system.


liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com...



He’s accused of entering federal property under false pretenses.

(snip)


But since the final charges are misdemeanors, the four will be facing a Federal Magistrate.


Interestingly, I just found this article:

news.yahoo.com...



James O’Keefe on secret Romney video: ‘an effective tactic that has a place in a democracy’
.By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 16 hrs ago


James O'Keefe, the 28-year-old filmmaker known for a series of undercover video stings targeting federally-funded organizations, called the use of secret cameras that captured Mitt Romney's comments at a private fundraiser "an effective tactic that has a place in a democracy." But he accused the news media of using a double standard when covering the new video and when writing about the films he produced.

"I think that there's definitely been a double standard amongst professional journalists here because they've been pretty much raking Project Veritas [his company] over the coals for about three years," O'Keefe told Yahoo News during a phone interview from his office in New York. Project Veritas is the organization he founded to produce his videos. "There are no questions about whether it [the video of Romney] was dubbed or doctored, whether there are criminal, potentially state crimes committed in the course of taking that camera around, whether somebody left the camera there and walked away."


(snip)


O'Keefe went on to say that he has no problem with someone secretly setting up a camera during a private event for a candidate for office.

"It's an effective tactic that has a place in a democracy to expose the truth, to expose circumstances truth behind closed doors and what people honestly believe or are saying to their friends, their surrogates," he said. "I don't have any problem with reporters using these tactics. Using hidden cameras, using pretenses. I'm fine with it. My problem is in the media's double standards."


Even he recognizes this as a private event, where he as a journalist may have some freedoms not allowed a private citizen. I disagree with him on that, as does Florida law. I agree about the double standards, though.


edit on 19-9-2012 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by underduck
 


I agree, I was attempting to draw the point of the surreptitiousness of it, however.

It;s still illegal.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by underduck
 



Originally posted by underduck
I must be hopeless then. Shame on me for understanding that politicians are different when they know they are being watched. Shame on me for thinking people should behave the same in public and in private. Shame on me for being happy that the public got a chance to see a glimpse at one of these 50K a plate dinner speeches. Shame on me for thinking transperancy might change the current political system.


Seems to me you are complaining that water is wet.

The world is an imperfect place. I understand and even share many of your sentiments. But I also understand that sometimes the cure is far worse than the disease.

Transparency for me, however is not the same thing as unbridled investigation. It doesn't matter that he's a politician. He's also a citizen.

Even you can't believe in unbridled private investigatory behavior. Should I have the right to investigate the most sensitive of our State security procedures in the country? Can I walk around a nuclear power plant to just check things out? Can I spy on my neighbor who is running for a School Board position?

The truth is, people who hold your view aren't thinking this through clearly.

Transparency can be reasonably furthered by other appropriate means, without creating a private investigatory right.


The world you wish to paint frightens the hell out me. :shk:


Originally posted by underduck
Totalitarian? I think you misunderstood me. I wasnt claiming that our leaders need to understand how the people think. I was claiming that the people need to understand how our leaders think.


Oh, I understood you perfectly. I think you misunderstood me.

In our system of government, the leaders are the people. Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander.

Look, I get the result you're seeking. I even agree with the goal. But the means suggested by this approach isn't the fix. In fact, it will just make things far worse. Really think about that. When you have, post what the standard would look like and let's discuss it.


Maybe I've missed something.


Originally posted by underduck
Elections and term limits mean nothing if we only accept what these people say infront of a teleprompter.


Come on. You really can't think that makes sense. Think this through...

You think a private right of investigation will solve what already doesn't happen when the electorate wont vote the bozos out even when it is clear an elected official's actions contradict their campaign promises?

That's some quirky logic.

edit on 19-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by underduck
 


I agree, I was attempting to draw the point of the surreptitiousness of it, however.

It;s still illegal.


I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Even if (and thats a big if) it was illegal. Just because it was illegal doesnt mean it was wrong.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 



Originally posted by olaru12
Do you think Mitt Romney will give a damn about the privacy of the American citizens.


No.

But that isn't the point of this thread.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DragonFire1024
If you are a political figure, or an employee of the United States government, anything you say or do in regards to your JOB, is considered public record. Romney is running for president. Therefore anything he says or does is part of his job as a government official and public domain. Regardless if it was a house or a stadium, he was invited to give a speech that was part of his line of work. So there is no privacy. If he really expected not to get recorded, they would have asked for cell phones to be turned off, or hand over the equipment.

Now if this were a conversation between friends that had nothing to do with a speech he was going to give then there would be a privacy concern. But the fact is, this was done in an open setting with more than a few friends.

To be honest, it doesn't matter how much of the tape is allegedly missing. If he had said anything of importance after the recording stopped, he could have released such a statement instead of calling for all of a tape to be released when there probably isn't any tape left.

There is no context here. He said what he said and meant it. He doesn't care about anyone who doesn't have money. If anyone running for public office, including the US presidency thinks this away about any % of Americans, they don't deserve to be in the White House or any other elected form of office.

"Liberty and justice for all..." not just the rich.


I can agree with a lot of what you said, however I have had 4 years of people bashing and telling me otherwise, that politicians have the same rights to privacy as everyone else. So which is it? Where are Obama's records, then? I am not being facetious, I am being sincere. It's either a double standard, or it it isnt.

And you do not know if he called for all cell phones to be turned off or handed over. That hasn't been disclosed, so that is a huge assumption to make.

I am not arguing the veracity of what he said, the goodness or wrongfulness of it. To me, that is a moot point. I don't care.

I do care that if laws were violated, that some attention be paid to it. I am not calling for someones' execution here, but that some attention be paid to the laws.

In my opening post, I quoted that even politicians a public officials have rights to privacy when they are inside private homes. Perhaps you missed that part?

It was done in an open setting in a private home, in Boca Raton, Florida, who happen to have laws about eavesdropping and recording conversations when two or more people are gathered. It does specifically mention public figures. I posted links.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by DragonFire1024
If you are a political figure, or an employee of the United States government, anything you say or do in regards to your JOB, is considered public record. Romney is running for president. Therefore anything he says or does is part of his job as a government official and public domain. Regardless if it was a house or a stadium, he was invited to give a speech that was part of his line of work. So there is no privacy. If he really expected not to get recorded, they would have asked for cell phones to be turned off, or hand over the equipment.

Now if this were a conversation between friends that had nothing to do with a speech he was going to give then there would be a privacy concern. But the fact is, this was done in an open setting with more than a few friends.

To be honest, it doesn't matter how much of the tape is allegedly missing. If he had said anything of importance after the recording stopped, he could have released such a statement instead of calling for all of a tape to be released when there probably isn't any tape left.

There is no context here. He said what he said and meant it. He doesn't care about anyone who doesn't have money. If anyone running for public office, including the US presidency thinks this away about any % of Americans, they don't deserve to be in the White House or any other elected form of office.

"Liberty and justice for all..." not just the rich.


I can agree with a lot of what you said, however I have had 4 years of people bashing and telling me otherwise, that politicians have the same rights to privacy as everyone else. So which is it? Where are Obama's records, then? I am not being facetious, I am being sincere. It's either a double standard, or it it isnt.

And you do not know if he called for all cell phones to be turned off or handed over. That hasn't been disclosed, so that is a huge assumption to make.

I am not arguing the veracity of what he said, the goodness or wrongfulness of it. To me, that is a moot point. I don't care.

I do care that if laws were violated, that some attention be paid to it. I am not calling for someones' execution here, but that some attention be paid to the laws.

In my opening post, I quoted that even politicians a public officials have rights to privacy when they are inside private homes. Perhaps you missed that part?

It was done in an open setting in a private home, in Boca Raton, Florida, who happen to have laws about eavesdropping and recording conversations when two or more people are gathered. It does specifically mention public figures. I posted links.


I didn't miss anything. The fact remains, whether he was in John Doe's house or Barack Obama's, he was giving this speech as part of his official line of work, therefore it doesn't fall under privacy or copyright laws:




A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties." The term only applies to the work of the federal government, including the governments of "non-organized territorial areas" under the jurisdiction of the U.S Government...such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as 'noncopyright.' "



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Was Romney taped illegally? Was the publication in Mother Jones Illegal?


Well ... if it was illegal to tape him and to publish it, I highly doubt Obama's (IN)Justice Department would do anything about it. Holder is Obama's lil' buddy. And I'd think the DOJ would be the ones to check it out because Romney is POTUS Candidate and I'm thinking this would go to a federal level.



It would start in the Florida Court systems, and Florida has a Federal branch.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by underduck

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by underduck
 


I agree, I was attempting to draw the point of the surreptitiousness of it, however.

It;s still illegal.


I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Even if (and thats a big if) it was illegal. Just because it was illegal doesnt mean it was wrong.



Ouch.

I guess you are right.

We are going to have to agree to disagree, *if* it was illegal still doesn't make it right. Regardless of the information gleaned.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
The world is an imperfect place. I understand and even share many of your sentiments. But I also understand that sometimes the cure is far worse than the disease.

Transparency for me, however is not the same thing as unbridled investigation. It doesn't matter that he's a politician. He's also a citizen.


I understand what you are saying and although I agree that this isnt the type of "transparency" I want to see either it is closer than what we currently have. Hey! Maybe you and I can spend our weekend filing Freedom of Information Acts together and see how far that gets us.


Originally posted by loam
Even you can't believe in unbridled private investigatory behavior. Should I have the right to investigate the most sensitive of our State security procedures in the country? Can I walk around a nuclear power plant to just check things out? Can I spy on my neighbor who is running for a School Board position?


Sure. It cant be unchecked. But there is a very big difference here between this recording at a dinner where he is giving a political speech and say stalking a School Board member.


Originally posted by loam
The truth is, people who hold your view aren't thinking this through clearly.

Transparency can be reasonably furthered by other appropriate means, without creating a private investigatory right.



My offer still stands to file some Freedom of Information requests.


Originally posted by loam
The world you wish to paint frightens the hell out me. :shk:


To quote you, "The world is an impefect place."


Originally posted by loam
In our system of government, the leaders are the people. Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander.


That would be nice but you and I both know that isnt true.


Originally posted by loam
Look, I get the result you're seeking. I even agree with the goal. But the means suggested by this approach isn't the fix. In fact, it will just make things far worse. Really think about that. When you have, post what the standard would look like and let's discuss it.


Maybe I've missed something.


I would love to hear your theory as to how we can get better transparency in the media. I dont want reporters with video cameras hiding in trees either but what else can we do?



Originally posted by loam


Originally posted by underduck
Elections and term limits mean nothing if we only accept what these people say infront of a teleprompter.


Come on. You really can't think that makes sense. Think this through...

You think a private right of investigation will solve what already doesn't happen when the electorate wont vote the bozos out even when it is clear an elected official's actions contradict their campaign promises?


All I am saying is that it is something. Its more than we had last week.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal



He’s accused of entering federal property under false pretenses.

(snip)


But since the final charges are misdemeanors, the four will be facing a Federal Magistrate.



edit on 19-9-2012 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


Again this is not the same as what you bought up in the OP. It is illegal to lie to get into a federal building. It can be argued Romney's conversation was not private. So we are still at apples and oranges. This is why I stated you are being intellectually dishonest, you refuse to admit the other side does have a legal argument as to why this action wasn't illegal. I freely admit it might be illegal and it would be up to the court to decide that.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 



I didn't miss anything. The fact remains, whether he was in John Doe's house or Barack Obama's, he was giving this speech as part of his official line of work, therefore it doesn't fall under privacy or copyright laws:




A work of the United States government, as defined by United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties." The term only applies to the work of the federal government, including the governments of "non-organized territorial areas" under the jurisdiction of the U.S Government...such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as 'noncopyright.' "



Copyright law has zero to do with eavesdropping laws.

www.citmedialaw.org...


•Eleventh Circuit (with jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida and Georgia): see Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) ("The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.").



If you are recording in one of the states or territories within the First, Seventh, Ninth or Eleventh Circuits, the First Amendment right to record should protect you against prosecution for recording the police or other public officials as they carry out their duties in public places.



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.



see also United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir.1983) (finding that the press generally has no right to information superior to that of the general public)


www.detectiveservices.com...


All-Parties Consent Statutes


Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.

Florida - All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an “electronic, mechanical or other device” are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

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.


I would, for instance, expect to not be taped or recorded without my permission if I went to someones' home for a cookout or a party. If, in fact, I see a camera or video camera come out, I leave the area. I am camera shy. If I found I was taped or recorded without my permission, I would be offended. Most people have the courtesy to ask.

I think the situation fails your two prong test. He was recorded surreptitiously. In secret.

Yes, but you are not running for President of the United States. He is, and should expect this very thing. He's standing at a podium, for crying out loud. Is he so naive to forget this very thing happened to Obama last election cycle?
To argue that someone as a public figure, a presidential candidate, has any kind of expectation of privacy with regard to his candidacy and talking public policy is an interesting bit of denial.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


This is not a case of eavesdropping. He wasn't doing this in secrecy. This wasn't an event where someone called friends and said "hey come over for a drink." This was a planned event that was again, part of Romney's work as a US government official and candidacy for president.
edit on 19-9-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: typo



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by Libertygal



He’s accused of entering federal property under false pretenses.

(snip)


But since the final charges are misdemeanors, the four will be facing a Federal Magistrate.



edit on 19-9-2012 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


Again this is not the same as what you bought up in the OP. It is illegal to lie to get into a federal building. It can be argued Romney's conversation was not private. So we are still at apples and oranges. This is why I stated you are being intellectually dishonest, you refuse to admit the other side does have a legal argument as to why this action wasn't illegal. I freely admit it might be illegal and it would be up to the court to decide that.


No, it is not what I brought up in the OP. It's a part of an evolving conversation. Grats on recognizing that!

The part you amazingly glassed over was that O'Keefe, when he first started the undercover investigations about ACORN, was blasted in the media for doing it illegally. He was taken to task *in the media* for illegally recording the ACORN people, which he did NOT do.

The part of going into the office, which he *did* do, came later, and was only mentioned to avoid anyone (looks at you) from bringing up that it was intentionally left out to avoid discussing he got in trouble. See how I headed off that accusation?

I freely admit, as well, there are two sides to every argument. I never "refused to admit" that the other side has a legal argument. I started the OP with an opinion, the opinion that it was illegally obtained, and I will maintain that position. I backed it up with Florida state law and federal law as well.

I drew a parallel between what was done by this person that recorded Romney and O'Keefe in the way the media has handled them in totally opposite ways. Once the subject of O'Keefe came up, I found it rather interesting that they indeed handled them the absolute oppposite, freely posting the Romney video and not asking one question about the surreptitious manner in which it was obtained, yet hung O'Keefe out to dry.

Seriously, the only intellectual dishonesty I see here is yours, for continually trying to get me to "admit" to something that is rather a moot point, that obviously this is a message board and not a court of law. That there are two sides, obviously, to every argument, all the while attempting to throw political barbs that are uncalled for.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 





Once the subject of O'Keefe came up, I found it rather interesting that they indeed handled them the absolute oppposite, freely posting the Romney video and not asking one question about the surreptitious manner in which it was obtained, yet hung O'Keefe out to dry.


The question is being asked. I already posted a politico article about that point. That argument is appearing on other outlets as well. There is no double standard going on here.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonFire1024
reply to post by Libertygal
 


This is not a case of eavesdropping. He wasn't doing this in secrecy. This wasn't an event where someone called friends and said "hey come over for a drink." This was a planned event that was again, part of Romney's work as a US government official and candidacy for president.
edit on 19-9-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: typo


In a private home.

A private event free of journalists in a private home, with a limited number of people attending.

Now, we have a Florida legal opinion.

blogs.wsj.com...


Florida Official: No Complaints Over Secret Romney Taping.

By Andrew Grossman
Florida authorities aren’t investigating whether the person who taped Mitt Romney speaking at a Boca Raton fundraiser broke any laws because no victim has complained, said Paul Zacks, the chief assistant state attorney for Palm Beach County.

Florida law requires that anyone taping oral conversations get the permission of everyone involved. It’s clear that the source of the video made public this week didn’t do so.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean the recording was made illegally, Mr. Zacks said. Courts have ruled that taping without consent is legal is the people being recorded don’t have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.”


(snip)


The gathering at the home of private-equity executive Marc Leder where the recording was made appears from the video to be more intimate, though it doesn’t show the whole room.

“There’s quite an extensive legal analysis that takes place,” before deciding whether to bring charges, Mr. Zacks said. First, though, a victim needs to come forward.

“In the case where an allegation is of an illegal taping, the interest of the victim is paramount and we haven’t heard from them,” he said.

Surreptitious taping of political events isn’t a common crime for the Office of the State Attorney for Florida’s 15th Judicial Circuit, Mr. Zacks said.


So, according to this article, it's questionable, as I stated and agree with, but I side with it was illegal due to the "intimacy" statement both in the article and from Romney himself.

But for someone to step forward and file a complaint would be all that was needed for them to launch an investigation and determine if, in fact, a crime had been committed.

www.wptv.com...


Was Boca recording of Romney legal?
By: Evan Axelbank


BOCA RATON, Fla. - Was the tape of Mitt Romney speaking in Boca Raton during a May 17th fundraiser legally recorded?

Florida law says all parties have to know they're being recorded, or its illegal.

"In a totally private setting, you have to give your consent," said West Palm Beach first amendment lawyer Jim Green.

Green says it's unclear whether Romney had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

It was at a private home, without media and the video in question was taken with a camera that Green says may not have been obviously in view.


"There are arguments where he would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, " said Green.

But Green wonders whether a presidential candidate should ever legally expect privacy when he's in a group of people and talking public policy - in an age where cameras are as common as controversy.


Which, again, is my point. Just because it happens, or may happen, is it right?



We've learned that the chair of the Romney campaign in Palm Beach County, Jay Goldfarb, who also happens to own a print shop in town, is bringing signs to Thursday's fundraiser that say no audio recording allowed.

It's unclear if they were at the last one, and that could have an impact on whether the recording was legal or not.

Green says a sign like that could give even a presidential candidate comfort in being safe from cameras.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join