Mel Gibson caught using racist, sexist slurs on tape, reports say

Cleveland.com ^ | 7/2/10 | Melodie Smith

[brytlea]

You didn’t answer me. Do you think it is ok if someone (your lover, your wife, whoever) records an intimate moment and then broadcasts it to the world? I don’t care what the particular law in your state says. Those can be changed, based on what the citizenry deems correct. What do YOU think. That is what I asked. I believe it has gotten out of hand, and I do NOT believe it is an First Amendment issue.

[Señor Zorro]

I had thought it clear. Oh, well.

You didn’t answer me. Do you think it is ok if someone (your lover, your wife, whoever) records an intimate moment and then broadcasts it to the world?

No. I do not. I find such a thing morally and ethically reprehensible.

That does not make it illegal, nor should it.

The publication of legally obtained material is, indeed, a first amendment issue. How could it not be?

Finally, I do not know whether the material mentioned in this article is legally obtained. If not, then whoever acquired it ought to be punished to the full extent of the law.

Now: what would you have changed? What policy do you want to see enacted to get things "under control"?

[brytlea]

I do not think it should be legal to record someone, without their knowledge, in private, and then publicize it. That’s what I think. You clearly think that is ok. Thank you for answering my question.

[xp38]

Mug shot of him after being taken in for a dui in Arizona I think within the last 10 years or so. That is about how long I have been on FR and I recall the thread here when it happened.

[Señor Zorro]

You clearly think that is ok. Thank you for answering my question.

What I said was:

1. The distribution of legally acquired material should be unrestricted
2. I would not like it if someone revealed intimate moments to the world.
3. That my personal feelings/preferences did not determine policy.

I have not heard the tape, so I do not know whether or not this policy applies, but I think anyone should be able to tape their own conversations without permission and that anything I tape thus, I should be able to do with as I please. This is freedom and people sometimes do bad things with freedom. The only other solution is slavery.

I have a little (only semi-fictional, though not personal) example to consider:

1. You attend a meeting, secretly taping it. In the process you tape some embarassing statements by someone else, but not yourself.
2. The other attendee lies about said meeting, claiming you did something damaging, embarrassing, or illegal.

You have evidence to exonerate yourself, which would not be legal under your own terms. Are you allowed to publicize it to set the matter straight? Why or why not? Recording aside, can one publicize intimate or embarrassing details about someone else? What if someone merely said that Gibson said these horrible things about his wife? Would you restrict that? Why or why not?

[Deb]

I'm sure you'd seem like Noel Coward if a tapes of your private rants were leaked.

He's rich. He's powerful. He should have escaped when she tried to name their baby, "Meal Ticket".

[brytlea]

A meeting is not the same as a personal/intimate conversation, so it is not what we are talking about.

[Deb]

Or, yet another seemingly brilliant man puts himself at the mercy of another predatory female. These women roam in packs at every Hollywood event and wait for the chance to hook some celebrity who has been over-served. From John Lennon to Harrison Ford to Kelsey Grammar to Mel Gibson, men who should know better, fall.

These surgically enhanced ticks attempt to embed themselves as deeply as possible into the celebrity blood supply before they get yanked out.

The "gold ring" and lifetime security is, the celebrity baby. Heather Mills, Marla Maples and Kimberley Conrad (TWO Hefner babies!) never have to work again.

[Señor Zorro]

I fail to see any difference—I did not say what kind of meeting, merely that the two parties met. That could be anything from a formal business engagement to an intimate rendezvous.

So: do you or do you not have the right to tape your own conversations?

[brytlea]

I don’t care to play games with you. You said a meeting, which I took to be a public meeting of some sort. I am talking about a private more intimate conversation between a couple. I think you have stepped into a pile of something here and know it and don’t want to admit you erred. So, I’m done debating with you. What I am talking about has nothing to do with the first amendment. If you don’t get it, I’m sorry. For you. Now, go outside and play. It’s a lovely 3 day weekend.

[Señor Zorro]

I stepped in nothing—you have gotten to the point where you seriously believe that one is not entitled to record one’s own conversations. Your limited view of the word “meeting” is your own error. FreeDictionary gives the first definition for “meeting” as:

1. The act or process or an instance of coming together; an encounter.

Somehow, that just doesn’t preclude an intimate setting.

I find the act of recording and publicizing intimate, romantic moments to be morally reprehensible—but we do not outlaw everything that is immoral (or else the whole of the populace would be in jail). Attempting to clamp down on this particular issue would, I think, have chilling ramifications much broader than you are thinking of.

Incidentally, this seems to be quite a bur under your saddle. Did someone pull a stunt like this on you?

The distribution of legally obtained material is protected by the first amendment. Do you or do you not agree with that statement?

A person should be allowed to record their own conversations. Do you or do you not agree with that statement?

[brytlea]

Legally obtained material is subject to change, clearly, since the laws vary by state. So, you are speaking nonsense.
A person can certainly record themself. But, if there is another person involved, that is the sticking point. No, I have never been involved in something like this, but I am not so shallow that I cannot put myself into the place of another person.
You can go on and on all you like. This is not a first amendment issue. We seem to be going over and over the same point here. You are not going to say anything new, clearly, and so, I think we are done. Adios Senor.

[Señor Zorro]

No I am not—because I am not getting any answers to my theses. So, I think we are done—your thinking is far too muddled.

[brytlea]

You have put forward no thesis, and yes, I said we were done, I’m glad you agree. If it makes you feel better to have the last word, then you can think that.