Unfair Firing for 'Miami Herald' Columnist Who Taped Interview? [RE Teele suicide in Miami]

EditorandPublisher.com ^ | July 28, 2005 | Joe Strupp

[lepton]

As long as one party is aware fo the recording, I cannot understand the justification for such laws. A legal prohibition from taking definitive notes?

[ExpatGator]

Wow, Defede needs less of da feed.

[summer]

But, KC, what do they need a "scapegoat" for? I still think their fear of civil litigation is what caused this. Or, maybe, other employees known to them are illegally taping (though I'm still not sure if these cirucmstances amounted to illegal taping or not with Defede), and maybe they didn't want any criminal investigation going on involving the Herald.

in any event, they are not doing well in the public relations department, and, Defede will be ble to find another job. And, just think - if he hadn't told his employers what he had done, they probably would have never found out )so long as he didn't write about it).

[summer]

Well, the one party aware is the one doing the recording - so the OTHER person may want to know, too. But, again, in this case - with a public official under investigation like this, ralking to a reporter? I just don't think that such an official can claim "privacy" in those circumstances.

[lepton]

I've always opposed 2-party consent laws,

They are intellectually rediculous. The reporter could still write down all of what he said - it would just be disputable.

[summer]

And, the reporter could get it wrong!

[lepton]

especially if one party does have an expectation of privacy in the subject conversation.

They are still telling the person on the other end. That person is able to relate the conversation - no law prohibits that. There is no more privacy granted by this law. The ONLY case where it does is where an employer demands that its employees give consent. Anyone recording for themselves and giving true consent is engaged in nothing more than note-taking. A law barring methods of note taking based upon being accurate is silly.

[summer]

Not in the case previously mentioned on this thread, where a private investigator wanted to record a husband abusing his kids, while the wife and husband are in the midst of a divorce. There IS an expectation of privacy a person has in their own home, for instance. So, these laws are not silly (though it didn't the kids in that case). I disagree with you.

[summer]

did HELP the kids in that case..

[summer]

I meant DIDN'T help the kids in that case...

[summer]

See post #28.

[lepton]

Well, the one party aware is the one doing the recording - so the OTHER person may want to know, too.

Yeah...it might be nice to know the intentions of the person you are talking to...but all of that really goes well past the act of recording.

[lepton]

Not in the case previously mentioned on this thread, where a private investigator wanted to record a husband abusing his kids, while the wife and husband are in the midst of a divorce. There IS an expectation of privacy a person has in their own home, for instance.

I'll grant that there is an expectation of privacy in the case of remote monitoring where there is no one else there. In that case, there is no one-party consent. If the wife were to carry the recorder, there can be no expectation of privacy from her - except to the extent she simply refrains from relating what she has seen.

[lepton]

I read that. It is quite different. Frankly, I'd consider the video and the audio to be the same intrusion or not. If she was there, then a clear record of what she witnessed would be suitable, subject to confidentiality...if she was not there, then there is an expectation of privacy.

Confidentiality and privacy are not the same. If there are other people there, then you are not private from the other people - though you may expect them to keep what they witness confidential. If they are under an actual obligation to keep things confidential, then that would apply to any notes they took as well, in whatever form. This aspect of this law is about note-taking, not about confidentiality.

[rogue yam]

What if Defede thought Teele wanted to make some kind of public statement in response to these charges? That would make sense as to why Defede was taping Teele.

It appears that Florida law required Defede to ask Teele's permission before turning on the tape recorder. My point is that, irrespective of whether this is a good law, it should apply equally to any two parties.

[tessalu]

I think that the man knew that a crime was about to be committed and he had every right, even an obligation to record that conversation, as to the proof of what really happened. Now we know.

[Prodigal Daughter]

That's right. From reports I listened to yesterday (Raquel Regalado) and watched on tv (Channel 6 was it?) it seems that there was an hour to 90 minutes of tape because there was a first discussion before his death, and it is speculated (Regalado reported) that the tape tells Teele's side of it, makes accusations against corrupt politicians who were doing the mudslinging against him. I think they fired DeFede not because of any ethical standards (HA HA Miami Herald ethical, that's a joke!) but because he was about to write Teele's side of the story and Teele's mud was real mud, not based on prostitutes' and crack whore's allegations about kickbacks.

I think Miami Herald is mad there is any taped evidence against their friends and that's why they won't hand over the tape to the police. Teele had a bundle of documents with him when he committed suicide. He gave them to the security guard and it has been reported that the FBI took them. "Muchos gatos encerrados en la politicia Miamense, como siempre"

I also read in an article somewhere (miaminewtimes I think) that Teele was frustrated as well that things he said to DeFede off the record, ended up on the record. Some friend, some journalist.

[Prodigal Daughter]

Now we know.

We don't know anything from the tape and we might not ever be told what was on the tape.

[OldFriend]

So committing suicide is a crime?

[vollmond]

Once again, media makes media the center of the story.