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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


It doesn't matter what kind of building it was in. He was giving a speech at a fundraiser which cost 50k a plate. So regardless of where this event was held, it doesn't change the fact that this was part of his job. Just because you might not be able to afford a $50,000 dinner doesn't mean what happens inside is private when anyone with that kind of money could've gotten a ticket, journalist/spy/etc or not. So considering that, this was anything BUT private.




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by underduck
 



Originally posted by underduck
Hey! Maybe you and I can spend our weekend filing Freedom of Information Acts together and see how far that gets us.


Now THAT process is clearly broken and could be easily improved. I have railed on these boards for years about this issue.

I'd also like to point out that Obama made this claim:



Compare with what he actually did:




“Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work. … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it,” said Katherine Meyer, a Washington lawyer who’s been filing FOIA cases since 1978. “This administration is raising one barrier after another. … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned — I’m really stunned.”

Read more: www.politico.com...



But the vast majority of those who supported him the first time around will continue to do so.

So much for accountability.



Originally posted by underduck

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.


Why? Use the same scenario.

You're running for school board and invite several potential supporters to your house for dinner. They record your conversations without your knowledge. Is that ok? What about the other attendees? Do they have a right not to be a collateral consequence to another's investigatory actions?

What is the standard you wish to apply that distinguishes these two situations?


Originally posted by underduck

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."


Acknowledging the world is an imperfect place has NOTHING to do with selecting a poorer option than the one you already have.


This reply makes no sense to me.



Originally posted by underduck
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?


Transparency doesn't require media in the trees.

In a campaign, require full financial and eligibility disclosure. It's patently ridiculous that Romney and Obama have gotten away with this nonsense.

On other matters, if a candidate doesn't wish to disclose other items, electorate beware. Vote accordingly.



Originally posted by underduck

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.


It's LESS than we had...

Each year, with the assistance of technology, things get worse. The potential for fraud and abuse grows exponentially.

The smart ones will NEVER run under these conditions, leaving us with weak binary and polarized choices that do nothing to offer meaningful solutions to our substantive problems.

Under these conditions, no rational person I know would run for political office. Would you?

The electorate had better get a clue, before it's too late... It may already be too late, imo.

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



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 



Actually, again, the Florida Bar disagrees with you, sepcifically:


mrctv.org...


Does the private residence which Romney's private fundraiser was held at constitute a public place where those being recorded might reasonably be overheard?

According to The Florida Bar on the issue of invasion of privacy, a person's home gets the highest protection from the courts. It states:

Taking photographs of a person or his property in a private place may be an invasion of privacy. Tape recording a person without his consent may invite damage awards, and, in Florida, also constitutes a crime. Sec. 934.03(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (1995).

Later, The Florida Bar goes on to raise the question in the case of a lawsuit: "Has the newsgatherer violated a "Sphere of Privacy" from which the plaintiff reasonably expected the press to be excluded"?

The federal court decisions in Pearson v. Dodd, 410 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1969) and Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971) arguably have established a federal right of privacy paralleling state privacy torts but distinct from the federal constitutional privacy right emanating from the fundamental choice concept. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Under this theory, the newsgatherer is liable when he invades a "sphere of privacy" -- such as a person's home as in Dietemann -- which the person reasonably believes to be off limits to the news media.

There are several questions that arise from this incident which need to be answered. While the host of the fundraiser, Marc Leder, did invite the guests into his home, did he say cameras were off limits? If cameras were allowed, why is the camera hidden? Was this video recorded illegally under Florida law?


The questions remain, because many remain unanswered, but the fact remains the video was surreptitiously made, therefore, one can glean that it was without permission, especially when Florida recommends getting permission on tape to avoid circumstances such as this.

If permission was not granted, from the looks of this and from is known now, it was probably illegal.

You have your opinion, which you aren't going to change, and I have mine.

Looks like another agree to disagree, and you insist on having the last word, so... go ahead!



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 



It's LESS than we had...

Each year, with the assistance of technology, things get worse. The potential for fraud and abuse grows exponentially.

The smart ones will NEVER run under these conditions, leaving us with weak binary and polarized choices that do nothing to offer meaningful solutions to our substantive problems.

Under these conditions, no rational person I know would run for political office. Would you?

The electorate had better get a clue, before it's too late... It may already be too late, imo.


Sadly, I have to agree with this. I have had this conversation with my husband on more than one occasion.

NOthing, I mean, NOthing you do in life is sacred from the blood thirsty people that this world has been overrun with. Especially in the last 4 years. The press is outrageous, the politicians are equally so, and just as shameless.

No one that has a thing, and who doesn't? in their past, would run for office. The constant threat of something being dug up and thrown at you would haunt you the entire time! No one on this earth is squeaky clean, and if they are, something must be wrong with them, or they have paid some people off!

For God's sake, this is the best they can come up with on Romney, that and his underwear?!

What a shameless nation we have become, when telling the truth is used against you, and your undergarments are not even off limits.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


When you, as a US government official, do a fundraiser for your JOB then it doesn't matter. When you invite members of the PUBLIC to PAY for your fundraiser it doesn't matter. The residence may be a private one, but the event was not. It wasn't an invite only. It was a whoever had the money could attend fundraiser.

It's not about having the last word. Because I am not trying to win a fight. I am simply debating what everyone else is.
edit on 19-9-2012 by DragonFire1024 because: clarify



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Even if Mitt Romney was amongst a few people in an intimate setting, this does not necessarily mean that his privacy was protected. Celebrities and politicians, because they are in the public eye, have a lesser degree of privacy, because they knowingly place themselves under a spotlight.



...the personalities and affairs of celebrities are viewed as
inherently “public.” In this sense, the public nature of celebrities’
occupations is construed as waiving their rights to privacy. This
waiver should be regarded, however, as a limited waiver, restricting
the press to examining and exposing only that information that has
some bearing on the individual’s position in society...


p.290 --- Celebrities' Rights to Privacy --Jamie E. Nordhaus



That last sentence is a key point.

Q: Did the comments of Mitt Romney have a bearing on the individual's position in society?
A: Yes.




One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that
(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.

p.298 --- Celebrities' Rights to Privacy --Jamie E. Nordhaus



Q: Were the comments made (a) highly offensive, and/or (b) not of legitimate concern to the public?
A: No.


The only other question to answer is was this tape the result of an intrusion? In other words, were they on the guest list, or did they find a way in? From what I understand, there was no intrusion, and therefore publicizing the tape is completely legal.

When you have the status of a celebrity or politician most of what you say or do is, essentially, public record. Of course, there are limitations to this, but so long as they have potential bearing on society, there isn't much right to privacy.

EDIT:

Also, in relation to the case mentioned several posts above, Dietemann v. Time, Inc.. That case in particular is not relevant to this matter, because the information obtained by Time had no bearing on society at large whatsoever. You only need to read a few sentences into the brief to realize that.




"Plaintiff, a disabled veteran with little education, was engaged in the practice of healing with clay, minerals, and herbs--as practiced, simple quackery.

"Defendant, Time, Incorporated, a New York corporation, publishes Life Magazine. Its November 1, 1963 edition carried an article entitled 'Crackdown on Quackery.' The article depicted plaintiff as a quack and included two pictures of him. One picture was taken at plaintiff's home on September 20, 1963, [246] previous to his arrest on a charge of practicing medicine without a license, and the other taken at the time of his arrest.


--Dietemann v. Time, Inc.


edit on 9/19/12 by Resonant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


It's also my view the more perilous the risk of distortion, the LESS honesty we will get from candidates.

Our problems will only grow. Mark my words on this.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 



Especially in the last 4 years.


I thought this thread wasn't supposed to be about political ideology.

Its been this way since before there were parties. Not understanding that the money machine always wins and failing to remove ourselves from the illusions and devisiveness cranked out by that machine will be catastrophic no matter who's turning the crank.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
what this video revealed is romneys lack of empathy. he is the son of a multi-millionaire, and he himself is now one. jack and bobby kennedy, both born into money, knew and understood the common mans hopes, as well as his problems. they worked in government to better all people not just the wealthy. now compare that to romneys view of those 47% of "moochers". all 3 were born into money, but romney views the common working man as a detriment to america and not as a strength.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Resonant
 



www2.nbc26.tv...


Florida attorney Daniel Santaniello said that the secret taper could also run afoul of a federal statute, 18 USC 2511, which also prevents such illicit recordings. “Because it was a private fundraiser, it would appear the speaker has a subjective expectation of privacy,” Santaniello said. “It would appear that this recording arguably violates both Florida statute 934.03 and its federal counterpart.” Romney, Santaniello said, “enjoys the same constitutional rights as anybody under the statute.”


The part that people do not seem to understand is that Florida, out of 12 states total, has it's own distinct laws about a gathering of 2 or more people, in a private place. Regardless of the persons' public status. So, by your interpretation then, a reporter could barge into Obama's bedroom and record him practicing a speech in his underwear in front of the mirror because it is publically important information?

There has to be some limitation on what is public and what is private.

I have also posted several links to federal law regarding eavesdropping in regards to the location in a private home in an intimate setting that could very easily preclude this from being "celebrity status", which I can understand your point in making.

However, even celebrity status is allowed privacy under the law, which is why California had to specifically address the issue with paparazzi laws.

One can argue that Romney certainly has not yet acheived that level of celebrity, as well.

Also, as has been pointed out, under Florida Law, the person would have been required to ask for permission, and clearly did not, as they desired to keep their identity a secret, as well as the way the video was shot.

I have posted statements from Florida prosecutors and attorneys that make the same points that I have made, as well, though specifically, it seems that one has addressed the issue that it may have actually been a member of the wait staff, as it appears to be at the bartenders table, and this may raise a totally seperate issue in and of itself. It may also narrow the field in who the guilty party was, as well.


Birk also pointed out that the homeowner, Mark Leder, might have a case – particularly if the taper was a member of the catering staff at the event. “I’d want to see if there was anything in the contract with the caterer,” Birk said. “I think the homeowner could have a civil action.”



Certainly, however, the defense can be raised that it was for the "greater good", as I stated in my OP, which would then ameliorate the entire claim.

A finding on that defense could render any criminal claims moot, but not necessarily render the offender free of civil action in Florida or Federal Court.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Does that work both ways?
On ATS especially, if Obama was videotaped
in this same scenario, would anyone bring up
the constitutionality of how it was obtained?

I think 95% of ATSers wouldn't have a problem with it.
Funny how that works.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Resonant
 



Originally posted by Resonant
Also, in relation to the case mentioned several posts above, Dietemann v. Time, Inc.. That case in particular is not relevant to this matter, because the information obtained by Time had no bearing on society at large whatsoever. You only need to read a few sentences into the brief to realize that.


Why? Because you say so?


That's one of the points I've been making. A "bearing on society at large whatsoever" is an impossible and meaningless standard.


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



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 



Originally posted by sealing
Does that work both ways?
On ATS especially, if Obama was videotaped
in this same scenario, would anyone bring up
the constitutionality of how it was obtained?


My position would remain unchanged.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Libertygal
 



Especially in the last 4 years.


I thought this thread wasn't supposed to be about political ideology.

Its been this way since before there were parties. Not understanding that the money machine always wins and failing to remove ourselves from the illusions and devisiveness cranked out by that machine will be catastrophic no matter who's turning the crank.


It's not. Are you seriously going to argue that in the past 4 years the press hounds have not gotten extreme? The media is out of control. It just goes back to the issues about O'Keefe and how the bias was about him doing the same thing, but legally. He was raked over the coals for it and didn't break any laws until much later. But initially, when he broke the ACORN stories, he was dogged for doing what he did, and the media was reprehensible in their handling of the matter.

It has nothing to do with the politics, per se, and it shouldn't. It should be about following the law, fairness in reporting, and equal treatment. There is groups of people that will dig up anything on anyone and try to use it against them, and it came up in conversation. It isn't so much about who is doing it, but that it's now OK to do it, and no one steps up and stops it!

The worst part? The public eats it up. The even worse part, as Loam pointed out, who in their right freaking mind would run for office? Things you forgot about in school will be dredged up, or even made up, if it dogs you in the public. And every side is guilty of that.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
Does that work both ways?
On ATS especially, if Obama was videotaped
in this same scenario, would anyone bring up
the constitutionality of how it was obtained?

I think 95% of ATSers wouldn't have a problem with it.
Funny how that works.


Just like I stand for the rights of the person to say what they want, even if I disagree, I stand for the person to have a right to privacy. If we take the rights of one person, we can soon all expect to lose them.

Haven't most people on ATS argued Obama has a right to privacy, hence he was not required to release the birth certificate, college records, Selective Service Record, etc?

I thought that was what that whole argument was all about?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Libertygal
 


It's also my view the more perilous the risk of distortion, the LESS honesty we will get from candidates.

Our problems will only grow. Mark my words on this.


I thought about this too, because the more afraid people become to speak out of fear of having their words twisted out of context, the less willing they will be to speak honestly.

We have already seen that being done with both candidates, by both sides.

Words have become a risk, and it is no wonder Obama feels most secure with a teleprompter. That way, he is less likely to say something that can be taken in any way other than how it was meant. Seen it happen on too many occasions, and I know we will see it happen in the debates, too. I almost feel sorry for Obama in that respect, he can never speak freely.

This is why people have to rely upon their own thinking, instead of listening to what others tell them to think, and to use independent skills to decide. So many people let someone else decide for them.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Welcome to the age of teleprompters, where EVERYTHING is now scripted.

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



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I understand the OP and I do not mean to derail. But in the end? Barn Door. Horse.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by Resonant
 


The part that people do not seem to understand is that Florida, out of 12 states total, has it's own distinct laws about a gathering of 2 or more people, in a private place. Regardless of the persons' public status. So, by your interpretation then, a reporter could barge into Obama's bedroom and record him practicing a speech in his underwear in front of the mirror because it is publically important information?

There has to be some limitation on what is public and what is private.


I would not interpret the law in such a manner. That's ridiculous.

Speaking to a room of 100 or so individuals is an entirely different matter.

Listen, I am not trying to attack your personal character, I am just trying to pose a meaningful discussion, and I'd rather leave out the cheap shots. Back to the discussion...

From my understanding of the law, there is a lot of gray area. If this goes to court, which it probably will, there will be some rather open-ended questions that will be asked. Since this wasn't necessarily some sidebar conversation in a shadowy corner, but instead in room filled with people, is it reasonable to assume that no one would be recording the event? Considering the gravity of what was said, it isn't as if he was speaking of inconsequential matters. These are both big issues of concern (social welfare and international affairs), whether you agree with them or not, and they are issues that could most definitely have an effect on an election. Since they are of that sort of importance, it would be quite easy for the person that recorded these statements to use the First Amendment as a defense, which would trump any state or federal law regarding the privacy of Mitt Romney and his words.



Originally posted by loam
reply to post by Resonant
 



Originally posted by Resonant
Also, in relation to the case mentioned several posts above, Dietemann v. Time, Inc.. That case in particular is not relevant to this matter, because the information obtained by Time had no bearing on society at large whatsoever. You only need to read a few sentences into the brief to realize that.


Why? Because you say so?


That's one of the points I've been making. A "bearing on society at large whatsoever" is an impossible and meaningless standard.


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


Technically, yes, it is an impossible standard, but law must make certain assumptions in order for law to exist. If you would please read the brief of the suit here, you would see that Dietemann v. Time, Inc., really does not have much bearing over this recording. Dietemann was essentially a hermit (it's kind of hard to be in the public eye when the public doesn't even know you exist) who was charged for practicing medicine without a license. He lived and practiced holistic medicine (mostly using mud and clay) at his home. He did not advertise, did not have a phone, and did not accept payment. The only reason he got in trouble is because he made claims that he could not backup. He was arrested, at which point a photographer from Time took his picture. His story, along with his image, was published in a nationally syndicated magazine afterwards without his permission. I mean, if you think what this man did had a "bearing on society at large" then you are really splitting hairs. This case is much more meaningful when you take a private citizen, without any or much celebrity, and thrust them into public spotlight.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Now THAT process is clearly broken and could be easily improved. I have railed on these boards for years about this issue.


We completely agree here. As for the Obama administration I will admit that I bit hard 4 years ago and really had some optomism for a change how Washington runs. The last 4 years have been a complete disspointment to me. I have to either come to terms that Obama either was far more conservative than I thought or that the POTUS simply doesnt have the means to change things on the scale that I would like to see them changed. Not even close.

As a matter of fact it really hit me when they held private meetings on transparency in a location just outside of the whitehouse. I am not going to go look for the leak now but I am sure you know what I am talking about if you are interested in FOIA requests. Granted I do recognize you from the boards here and I have not read any of your posts about it but rest assured that we stand on the same side of that issue.


Originally posted by loam

But the vast majority of those who supported him the first time around will continue to do so.

So much for accountability.



I am not sure if I am going to vote for him or not this year. I certainly dont like Romney but I am by no means an Obama supporter. Not a fan of Ron Paul either for that matter.


Originally posted by loam
Why? Use the same scenario.

You're running for school board and invite several potential supporters to your house for dinner. They record your conversations without your knowledge. Is that ok? What about the other attendees? Do they have a right not to be a collateral consequence to another's investigatory actions?

What is the standard you wish to apply that distinguishes these two situations?


I am responsible for the words that come out of my mouth. Whether I say them infront of a TV camera or privately amongst friends. If these words end up hurting me it is my own fault. Sure I could be upset or feel betrayed by a person who recorded me but I dont feel I have any "legal" or "moral" right to say what they did was wrong. They couldnt be my friend after that but I dont think they should be punished.


Originally posted by loam
This reply makes no sense to me.



Yeah ... this was more me having a little fun with you. No real point to it at all. I am sorry if your vision of my words frightens you but something has to give. Unfortunately I fear that it will get worse before it gets better. Fake politicians are the norm and people are too afraid to do anything about it. Its sad. I dont see it getting any better either at least in the near future.


Originally posted by underduck
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
Transparency doesn't require media in the trees.

In a campaign, require full financial and eligibility disclosure. It's patently ridiculous that Romney and Obama have gotten away with this nonsense.

On other matters, if a candidate doesn't wish to disclose other items, electorate beware. Vote accordingly.



Both of them are sealed up tight. Every canidate that I have been alive for has been sealed up tight. This is not something that we can vote away. The entire system needs overhauled ... imo.


Originally posted by loam
It's LESS than we had...

Each year, with the assistance of technology, things get worse. The potential for fraud and abuse grows exponentially.

The smart ones will NEVER run under these conditions, leaving us with weak binary and polarized choices that do nothing to offer meaningful solutions to our substantive problems.

Under these conditions, no rational person I know would run for political office. Would you?

The electorate had better get a clue, before it's too late... It may already be too late, imo.


I would never run for political office. I simply dont have the ego for it. I do agree however the the electorate does need a clue. We are scrambling and trying to figure out how to do that. At least here we got some sort of look at what Romney really thinks. Kudos to him for backing it up. The problem I see is that most Americans believe their government to be corrupt liars but we still line up and pick against our least favorite puppet.
edit on 19-9-2012 by underduck because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join