Makers of ACORN 'Documentary' Sued in Federal Court
Remember, James O'Keefe's partner on an abortion documentary stopped working with him. She said he edited the video in a misleading way to make it look like things happened that didn't. (Imagine that!)
Anyway, now he and his newest collaborator can explain to a federal judge why he broke Pennsylvania's wiretap laws:
The Philadelphia-office director of the anti-poverty group ACORN filed a civil lawsuit late Thursday in federal district court alleging that two conservative filmmakers violated state law when they recorded an interview with her without her consent and then disseminated it.
State law prohibits the intentional interception, disclosure or use of oral communications.
The lawsuit alleges James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles showed up at ACORN's Philadelphia office last July "on the pretext" they were there for housing and mortgage advice and interviewed director Katherine Conway-Russell in her office.
According to the lawsuit, O'Keefe and Giles met with Conway-Russell in an "attempt to entrap" ACORN workers into behaving inappropriately. Conway-Russell told O'Keefe and Giles that she could help them only with mortgage opportunities but not with other matters, the lawsuit said.
O'Keefe and Giles later disseminated the audio and video recording of the interview to "injure and harm" Conway-Russell, according to the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages.
David Rudovsky, Conway-Russell's attorney, declined comment on the lawsuit. Contacted on his cell phone, O'Keefe declined comment and didn't respond to a reporter's e-mail questions.
O'Keefe and Giles attracted national media attention last summer when, posing as a pimp and prostitute, they approached two female seasonal workers in ACORN's Baltimore office, made a secret video recording of the meeting, then posted it online.
I wonder if the likes of Fox News are going to help these jokers (James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles) with their legal bills. They way Fox took this and ran with it and had it as their top story day after day after day after day you would think that Fox made millions of $$$$$$$$ off of these jerks. I hope that these two end up broke and realize how much the right wing they represent care about them when push comes to shove. All in all this may end up well.
Funniest if their backers ignore them, and they squeal in court that they did it under the orders of ... Then, the wingnut blogosphere attacks them for attacking their cherished megacorp or bloviating windbag.
made a lot of money on this story.
... that Andrew Breitbart, who (IIRC) funded O'Keefe's little project, should be named as an accomplice.
Does anyone know if the Pennsylvania statute lists this as a felony or a misdemeanor?
Interesting problems. First, it should be possible to "whistleblow" without risking reprisal. On the other hand; what happens when the "whistle blower's report turns out to be a mistake?
Regardless; no one should be able to investigate an event and then mischaracterize that event to a Government agency, or to any other third party.
People involved in an investigation or profiting from an investigation should be as legally exposed to the consequences of their misbehavior, as the investigators are. Therefore, I think Beidbart (sp) and Fox News should also be made parties to the lawsuit. They had a duty to make sure the event was not mischaracterized in the first place.
While I'm not a lawyer, isn't this sort of thing generally illegal under Federal law? My impression is that it's generally legal to record video without permission, but not audio.
Which is why cameras have tally lights on them. Even devices like the Nintendo DSi have an LED tally to show that the outward-facing lens is active, so you have to take deliberate steps to block or disable that capability.
And you also have the right, if you believe you have been recorded by a news photographer/videographer in a public area, to ask that they not use your image.
It's state law in these cases where audio has been recorded. I want to say it's 13 states, or 17 have such laws. Don't know federal law here, but surreptitious video recording is ok in nearly all places and situations. It's the distribution and presentation of said video that's often regulated.
... notably cases like ABC v. Food Lion, where the court initially ruled in favor of the supermarket chain. The ruling was overturned on appeal, but the principle remained: ABC had violated the law by their surreptitious recording of Food Lion's practices.
I don't know. That Food Lion has, I imagine, surveillance cams. How that's legal and ABC violated the law is interesting. Last I knew a few years ago, security surveillance cams weren't illegal anywhere in the US. Maybe those cams have an exception in the law?
He says the batteries ran out and he couldn't videotape, but continued recording the audio.
In PA, it's against the law to record audio without the other person's permission.
A former award-winning journalist and lifelong class warrior, keeping a jaundiced eye on the Washington elite.
For the past week , we have been raising funds for ShelterBox over at Craig Crawford's Trail Mix
We're working on our 3rd box now, and any help from the folks here at C&L would be greatly appreciated.
with prostitution?.....
by their own admission on tape....
That's an excellent point. Conspiracy, too.
It's well known that you can't record people without their permission in the state of Pennsylvania; just ask police, who can only record images with their patrol car cameras. I'm just wondering if the media outlets that continually aired the allegedly illegal obtained tape should also be named in the ACORN employee's suit, such as Faux Noise. It might make Faux Noise folks more responsible journalists, as if they are already.
The issue with O'Keefe is essentially illegal wiretapping.
Action against FOX Noise would be defamation of character, and FOX would immediately hide behind the 'absence of malice' provision, i.e., she's a public figure, fair comment, etc.
anyone who is working for the govt should be exempt from this law!
(while they are on the clock)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
I gather you're trying to argue that we SHOULD be able to record government officials on the QT so as to catch them red-handed.
Except 'on the clock' is meaningless in terms of corruption. Even as an hourly employee, receiving gifts and/or contributions would be something that occurs OUTSIDE of my place of employment and/or work environment.
anyone working for the govt (in the public interest) (govt contractors included!)
should be recordable...in otherwords...
they give consent "when they take the job"
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
There was definitely an ethical impropriety in the relationship between John McCain and Vicki Iseman, although the Times's tabloidisation of the story by implying a sexual impropriety as well undermined its legitimacy. For Amy Holmes to imply the two stories and their handling as being equivalent is dishonest.
... when I saw the getups O'Keefe and Giles were wearing. It looked like something out of a Pryor-Wilder movie. If I had been there when they walked in I'd still be laughing to this day. And it was a handy excuse for some Fox porn.
Remember, James O'Keefe's partner on an abortion documentary stopped working with him.
Can you tell us more about this? The more we know about O'Keefe's sordid past the better.
About time someone did something about these rightwing slease.
Will Hannity, Beck and FAUX pay their legal bills?? Probably not.
pennlady
Do you seriously think that just because they won't get mainstream sources bailing them out, that they won't find some rich republican to give them wingnut welfare? Dirty tricksters will always find success through some sleazoid.
Comments are closed on this entry