If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Freedom of the press still exists, as long as you're not a journalist reporting about a police officer beating up a handcuffed kid in a high school cafeteria   (ireport.cnn.com) divider line 206
    More: Scary, nullification, wiretaps, cafeterias, jury selection, Officer Darren Murphy, journalists, high schools  
•       •       •

16882 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2012 at 6:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-06 03:25:33 AM  

JuggleGeek: ubermensch: Secondly, he wasn't arrested for publishing, he was arrested under a stupid law for wiretapping. The press is still free, he broke a law (albeit a stupid one).

What wires did he tap? Who did those belong to? As I understand it, one of the kids in school where it happened took the video on his phone, gave it to the guy in the press who told the story. That's what the press is supposed to do, tell the story. Taking a video of something happening in front of you while in a public space surely isn't "wiretapping". Broadcasting a video that was legal taken and given to you isn't "wiretapping". So where is the wiretapping?


The reporter called the police and recorded his conversation with them. That is the wiretapping.
 
2012-08-06 03:46:30 AM  
Recording your own phone call is wiretapping? That wouldn't be true in my state, and it makes no logical sense.
 
2012-08-06 04:23:22 AM  

JuggleGeek: Recording your own phone call is wiretapping? That wouldn't be true in my state, and it makes no logical sense.


In the state in question both parties being recorded have to give consent. And considering that this guy did not even tell them he was recording the conversation it constitutes wiretapping.
 
2012-08-06 08:59:08 AM  

Mock26: eggrolls: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.

He secretly recorded a conversation he had with a police officer over the phone. That is where the wiretapping charges come from. Also, the term "tapping" in wiretapping does mean what you think it means. It does not apply only to putting a tap on someone's line. It also includes recording any conversation over a phone line, including holding a microphone up to the phone while you are talking on it.


He said "I am doing an interview about..."

If a reporter calls and asks for an interview, don't you HOPE that he's taking a recording, rather than taking your quotes from memory?
 
2012-08-06 09:05:03 AM  

HeartlineTwist: Jesus. Late to the party and didn't read the article to boot.

This isn't about the cellphone video the student recorded. This is about Ademo calling the police station and the school and recording those phone calls and them publishing them via a youtube video. The secretary/receptionist at the police station, the chief of police (or another officer), and the principal of the school were all recorded without consent. Therefore, wiretapping.


(1) They were informed that it was an interview for a news article. Therefore they consented to being on the record by continuing the conversation.

(2) Wiretapping laws only apply when you have an expectation of privacy. As these were all public officials acting in their public capacity and having a phone conversation with a member of the public they they 'serve,' there was no expectation of privacy.

(3) The employees of the police station should have had actual notice of the Glick decision in their Federal Circuit Court that determined that police have no expectation of privacy, and can be recorded whenever they act in their public capacity.
 
2012-08-06 01:10:10 PM  

iawai: Mock26: eggrolls: James F. Campbell: stevarooni: Breaking the law (in general; not an unjust law you're fighting against) for a "Good Cause" isn't just.

A public official in a public area has no expectation of privacy, you law-worshipping douchebag.

This. Protesting an inappropriately applied law IS a perfectly just cause. He's being charged with 'wiretapping'. Exactly what 'wire' was 'tapped', and how? Recording loud, violent activities that occur in a public place (and a school cafeteria certainly counts), is hardly eavesdropping. If it were, everyone who saw with their own two eyes would also be guilty of...I dunno... 'brain recording'?

No reasonable expectation of privacy is implied in this situation, and none should be inferred. The kid is being charged and held unjustly.

He secretly recorded a conversation he had with a police officer over the phone. That is where the wiretapping charges come from. Also, the term "tapping" in wiretapping does mean what you think it means. It does not apply only to putting a tap on someone's line. It also includes recording any conversation over a phone line, including holding a microphone up to the phone while you are talking on it.

He said "I am doing an interview about..."

If a reporter calls and asks for an interview, don't you HOPE that he's taking a recording, rather than taking your quotes from memory?


Irrelevant. He could have been using a pen and paper to take notes. The law is very clear in that state that both parties have to consent to being recorded. He did not get their consent.
 
Displayed 6 of 206 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report