Originally posted by old_gregg
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
John Dehlin is thinking about bringing Mormon Stories back
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Shaka View PostDehlin would face the very real possibility of dealing with me if that were to happen. He wouldn't enjoy that very much.Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.
Comment
-
Originally posted by old_gregg View Postit's a matter of presumption. for the person being recorded to have to affirmatively prove that their privacy was invaded doesn't make sense to me. the person who is doing the recording should have to prove that there is some kosher motivation behind the recording (obviously subject to statutory exceptions for domestic, sexual and child abuse).
Maybe the law would carve out sufficient protection for this, I don't know."There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Originally posted by Shaka View PostDehlin would face the very real possibility of dealing with me if that were to happen. He wouldn't enjoy that very much.Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.
"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View PostDoesn't that cut both ways? Should someone really have to prove that they were legitimately worried about threats prior to recording conversations?
Maybe the law would carve out sufficient protection for this, I don't know.
A person should have a general expectation of privacy, or at least an expectation that something they say in a small audience or in a non-public setting would remain that way. God help us if we all have to speak and act like we are speaking to Congress every minute of every day.Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.
"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View PostDoesn't that cut both ways? Should someone really have to prove that they were legitimately worried about threats prior to recording conversations?
Maybe the law would carve out sufficient protection for this, I don't know."Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."
Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.
Comment
-
Originally posted by falafel View PostWhat about a scenario where you want to record a person running for political office who has been known to say some pretty nutty shit in private, just to expose him to a national audience? Obviously, the candidate is on his best behavior when in public, but might says something like "grab her by the [fill in the blank, the is strictly hypothetical anyway]."
A person should have a general expectation of privacy, or at least an expectation that something they say in a small audience or in a non-public setting would remain that way. God help us if we all have to speak and act like we are speaking to Congress every minute of every day.
If I run into someone on the street and have a conversation, do I have the right to restrict how the content of that conversation is distributed?
These are interesting questions. I am sympathetic to the 2-party arguments, but personally I fall on the side of 1-party consent. (until you guys change my mind I guess)"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View PostWhat defines public vs. private? Number of people involved in the conversation? If I am talking to 10 people on the bus, is that public? 10 friends in a restaurant?
If I run into someone on the street and have a conversation, do I have the right to restrict how the content of that conversation is distributed?
These are interesting questions. I am sympathetic to the 2-party arguments, but personally I fall on the side of 1-party consent. (until you guys change my mind I guess)
Mitt Romney's discussion about the 50% that will never vote for him comes to mind. Clearly he did not anticipate being recorded and broadcast to the larger public, but he made statements in a large public gathering. No chance that he has an expectation of privacy there. But what if he is in a campaign meeting with 5 of his closest aides and makes the same statement there? Or what if the statement is something less "relevant," but more personally damaging? "Test results came back, looks like I officially have micropenis." Sorry man, you said that in public! I was recording the whole time!Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.
"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by falafel View PostI agree, there is a boundary line and I'm not sure where it is.
Mitt Romney's discussion about the 50% that will never vote for him comes to mind. Clearly he did not anticipate being recorded and broadcast to the larger public, but he made statements in a large public gathering. No chance that he has an expectation of privacy there. But what if he is in a campaign meeting with 5 of his closest aides and makes the same statement there? Or what if the statement is something less "relevant," but more personally damaging? "Test results came back, looks like I officially have micropenis." Sorry man, you said that in public! I was recording the whole time!PLesa excuse the tpyos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by falafel View PostI agree, there is a boundary line and I'm not sure where it is.
Mitt Romney's discussion about the 50% that will never vote for him comes to mind. Clearly he did not anticipate being recorded and broadcast to the larger public, but he made statements in a large public gathering. No chance that he has an expectation of privacy there. But what if he is in a campaign meeting with 5 of his closest aides and makes the same statement there? Or what if the statement is something less "relevant," but more personally damaging? "Test results came back, looks like I officially have micropenis." Sorry man, you said that in public! I was recording the whole time!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by creekster View PostIf you have to be tested to answer that question, the answer is going to be yes.Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.
"The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American
GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!
Comment
-
Originally posted by old_gregg View Postdime roll?"There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
"It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
"Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster
Comment
Comment