Posted on 01/14/2019 12:11:49 PM PST by WellyP
“[T]he Court holds that [Massachusetts law] may not constitutionally prohibit the secret audio recording of government officials…”
(Excerpt) Read more at projectveritas.com ...
Does this mean our domestic enemies can no longer call O’Keefe a “convict” whenever they use his name?
Soon, they’ll make it illegal to criticize govt. if they’re not stopped.
This story is over a month old. Just say’n
Awesome!!!
Glad you posted it—who would ever have known otherwise.
Also glad to learn it.
I just stumbled on it about 30 min. ago, hasn’t had any “legs” anywhere and I’m “EVERYWHERE”.
The only purpose of laws against undercover recording is to protect lawmakers from having evidence collected against them.
bingo!
EVERYONE on the public dime should be considered open to the public for inspection.
“The only purpose of laws against undercover recording is to protect lawmakers from having evidence collected against them.”
And police.
This one has legs, since public school teachers and professors at state universities are also public officials because they are employed and paid by the public. Also unlikely that it will be successfully appealed since SCOTUS has already ruled that traffic stop interactions with police may be recorded.
I am amazed. A US Court which ruling according to USA law. One in a hundred win for those who fight the beast.
WOW! Great!
Very useful is a school or college setting. The public needs to see how leftist teachers really operate and how the inmates are running the asylum.
“Stopping that” is what the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan SCOTUS decision was about. It was a unanimous decision, with three justices wanting to go further. The Sullivan decision held that politicians, even judges, have a high bar to exceed in order to be able to sue for libel. That applies equally to Democrats and Republicans.But then, that is the same sort of “equal application” found in laws against sleeping under bridges - rich people don’t want or need to sleep under bridges, so the law’s applicability to them is moot. Likewise, a rule against suing for libel may apply - theoretically - to Democrats, but Democrats are never libeled. Whereas Republicans being libeled is a thing - indeed, a “Dog Bites Man” sort of thing.
The reason is that journalism’s emphasis on bad news creates a negative propaganda wind of criticism of society - and that inherently a pro-big-government message. Democrats are enthusiastic about big government (and the opportunities for graft inherent in it), so Democrats join themselves at the hip to journalism.
The reason “journalism” is ideologically unified is that
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776). . . and journalists “meet together,” virtually, via the AP “wire” (and any other news service). The resulting “conspiracy against the public, IMHO, is that journalists avoid the hard work of actually trying to be objective by forming a mutual admiration society in which a challenge to the objectivity of one is a challenge which will be met by all. Thus pro-Democrat propaganda is “objective,” don’t you know - and anti-Democrat reporting is “not journalism, not objective.”I see only one logical response: the wire services and the journalism outlets must be sued under antitrust law. Antitrust law was not raised at all in Sullivan, and therefore Sullivan would not constitute an adverse precedent in such a case.
Actually, the New York Times v. Sullivan decision looks like a strong precedent in this case. Sullivan is the unanimous 1964 SCOTUS decision which makes it hard for politicians to sue for libel, on grounds that freedom to criticize politicians is fundamental.Airing a videotape of politician skulduggery would seem to fit that mold nicely - and to air it, you have to tape it first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.